Positive DPS encounter Wise County!

[Rallyman]

A few weeks ago while traveling in rural Wise County ( I live in Tarrant Co.) I got pulled over by a DPS officer for doing 70 in a 55! (The speed limit had just changed to 55 and I hadn't lifted yet.... but I was past the sign.) I handed him my DL, CHL and insurance card and informed him that I was armed. He asked me where it was and then asked me to remove it, keeping the muzzel pointed towards the empty passenger seat. I complied and he took the gun, a pocket .380 I carry when I wear cargo shorts, and said he'd be right back.

Now this was the first time, and only to date, I'd been pulled over since I got my CHL. So I was somewhat concerned that he took the weapon. And since I was doing 15 mph over the limit I worried that I might have violated some obscure rule or something and lose my CHL! Isn't it funny the things that go through your head sometimes.

I watched intently through my side mirror for what seemed like an eternity, but was in reality only a few minutes, until he finally got out of his car. I noticed right away the he had my gun and that was a big relief. He came up to the window, removed the gun from the holster and pointed to some lint between the triger and the triger guard. He told me I should really keep an eye on that sort of thing because it might effect the gun if I should ever have to use. He holsterd the gun returned it to me, gave me a warning about the speed, told me to have a nice day and walked away.

Kudos to this Wise County DPS officer for his courtesy, respectful manner and for being kind enough not to give me a ticket when I was clearly speeding. I hope that all LEO contacts I have while carring go this smoothly, even if I get a ticket. It was nice to be treated with respect and courtsey while armed by an LEO!

[jbirds1210]

WOW, that is a great experience. It sounds like you did everything by the book and that the officer appreciated it. You should pay close attention to his advice about debris behind the trigger....it could save your life.
Jason

[Diode]

Just think how odd it would have sounded only a few years ago that a DPS officer would be pointing out to Joe Public lint on his weapon, refreshing to know sometimes we get it right and things work out for the better.

[KBCraig]

I hate to sound like a curmudgeon here, but I don't consider it a "good" stop when an officer or trooper disarms every CHL they encounter.

For starters, they're exceeding their authority under the law when they do so. They are authorized to disarm when they have reason to believe that they, the CHL, or a third party is in danger. They do not have authority to disarm CHLs just to run a serial number check on the gun, nor for any other routine reason.

Here's my definition of a "good encounter": the officer glances at the CHL, hands it back, and then takes care of whatever business prompted the encounter.

And an "excellent" encounter would be when he hands it back, says, "Thanks, have a nice day, and drive carefully!", then leaves.

Kevin

[RPBrown]

Although I do agree with Kevin on this matter, I do think that some SO's must have a policy to disarm. Most of what I have read here and my own experience has been a SO disarmming.

I have been stopped by locals and DPS and not disarmmed but twice by SO (Dallas and Tarrant Co.) and disarmmed both times.

And yes I do have a lead foot. But no tickets though.

[carlson1]

There are a lot of people who have a Drivers License in their pocket that has been suspended, so I guess you could have a CHL that has been suspended. Just because you have a CHL in hand means nothing. So, until the Trooper feels secure with you and the stop - I have no problem with what he did. Just recently an officer was shot and killed after an arrest. The suspect was handcuffed placed in the car then the officer was shot. It brings a lot of questions concerning the officers job performance. We are sometimes quick to Monday morning quarterback, but until you have stood on the highway in the middle of then night by yourself on a suspicious traffic stop or one that has gone bad you never know what YOU will do. 90% of DPS as well as most officers are great people

[txinvestigator]

Everytime a handgun is handled there is a potential for an accident.

If you are going to shoot a LEO, the best opportunity is when he tells you to place your hands on the weapon and hand it to him. There is no way he could react in time if you decided to shoot him after he tells you to hand it to him.

If you intend him harm, you now have the upper hand. if you don't intend him harm, then it does not matter if he disarms you or not.

The only safe way for a LEO to disarm a person to keep them from shooting the LEO is at gunpoint with the person on the ground.

I agree with KBCraig. It is not only bad form, it is pointless.

However, they are not restricted to disarming only when they believe there a person could be in danger.


Texas Government Code
§411.207. Authority of peace officer to disarm.

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. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the
license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.


The officer could easily make a case that until he verifies the CHL he reasonably believes it is necessary to disarm you for his protection.

I don't like them doing it, but I can see their POV.

[Rallyman]

I hate to sound like a curmudgeon here, but I don't consider it a "good" stop when an officer or trooper disarms every CHL they encounter.

For starters, they're exceeding their authority under the law when they do so. They are authorized to disarm when they have reason to believe that they, the CHL, or a third party is in danger. They do not have authority to disarm CHLs just to run a serial number check on the gun, nor for any other routine reason.

Here's my definition of a "good encounter": the officer glances at the CHL, hands it back, and then takes care of whatever business prompted the encounter.

And an "excellent" encounter would be when he hands it back, says, "Thanks, have a nice day, and drive carefully!", then leaves.

Kevin

I understand what you're saying Kevin, and in principle I agree. But in practice I don't think that's always the safe thing to do.

I"m pro 2A and pro L&O, but I do try to see things from the LEO's point of view. I have no problem what so ever with the Troopers actions, and I'm grateful for his attitude. Since I generally don't get pulled over more than once every 4 to 5 years (really), I just want everybody concerned to be comfortable with the situation what ever it takes.

[KBCraig]

I agree with KBCraig. It is not only bad form, it is pointless.

However, they are not restricted to disarming only when they believe there a person could be in danger.


Texas Government Code
§411.207. Authority of peace officer to disarm.

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'm not sure how that is different from saying "in danger". If there is no danger, no protection is needed.

Kevin

[txinvestigator]

I agree with KBCraig. It is not only bad form, it is pointless.

However, they are not restricted to disarming only when they believe there a person could be in danger.


Texas Government Code
§411.207. Authority of peace officer to disarm.

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'm not sure how that is different from saying "in danger". If there is no danger, no protection is needed.

Kevin

I am not trying to split hairs with you. There does not have to be any articuable danger for him to disarm you. I have already explained myself as to why. But here it is again

The officer could easily make a case that until he verifies the CHL he reasonably believes it is necessary to disarm you for his protection.

[Commander]

In this case the Trooper took the gun back to his patrol car without unloading it and returned it loaded (as best as I can tell from the story). I suspect he ran the gun for stolen while he had it with him...that may have been the purpose.

[JLaw]

In this case the Trooper took the gun back to his patrol car without unloading it and returned it loaded (as best as I can tell from the story). I suspect he ran the gun for stolen while he had it with him...that may have been the purpose.

Very true, while listening to the police scanner I hear Montgomery County S.O. running firearm numbers often to check for stolen.

JLaw

[TxFire]

I am certain that a high percentage of CHL holders are going out the door with a stolen weapon on their hip. I went to all this trouble to live a law abiding life that would qualify me for a CHL, then went to the trouble and expense to get the CHL and then decided to carry a stolen gun. If that is their logic for disarming, they are on a weak limb.

[KBCraig]

I'm not sure how that is different from saying "in danger". If there is no danger, no protection is needed.

I am not trying to split hairs with you. There does not have to be any articuable danger for him to disarm you. I have already explained myself as to why. But here it is again

The officer could easily make a case that until he verifies the CHL he reasonably believes it is necessary to disarm you for his protection.

That "easily made" case is much more easily impeached: an officer's "reasonable belief" is generally held to be valid if it is based on the officer's education or experience. What education or experience does the officer have that would lead him to reasonably believe that the CHL is not valid? What education or experience does the officer have would lead him to reasonably believe that someone who presents a CHL and announces that he is armed, would be more of a danger on the second approach, instead of the initial approach? What education or experience does the officer have that would him to reasonably believe that someone from whom he needs protection would knowingly present an invalid CHL, and acknowledge and surrender every firearm in his possession. After all, someone determined to kill a cop over a misdemeanor UCW charge would never hold back another gun, right?

I do not believe that an officer can "reasonably believe" that he needs to disarm every CHL he encounters for his own protection. Running serials further impeaches the claim that the disarming was done for protection.

God bless my brothers and sisters working the street. I wouldn't trade jobs any more than they would trade for mine.

Kevin

[txinvestigator]

I'm not sure how that is different from saying "in danger". If there is no danger, no protection is needed.

I am not trying to split hairs with you. There does not have to be any articuable danger for him to disarm you. I have already explained myself as to why. But here it is again

The officer could easily make a case that until he verifies the CHL he reasonably believes it is necessary to disarm you for his protection.

That "easily made" case is much more easily impeached: an officer's "reasonable belief" is generally held to be valid if it is based on the officer's education or experience. What education or experience does the officer have that would lead him to reasonably believe that the CHL is not valid? What education or experience does the officer have would lead him to reasonably believe that someone who presents a CHL and announces that he is armed, would be more of a danger on the second approach, instead of the initial approach? What education or experience does the officer have that would him to reasonably believe that someone from whom he needs protection would knowingly present an invalid CHL, and acknowledge and surrender every firearm in his possession. After all, someone determined to kill a cop over a misdemeanor UCW charge would never hold back another gun, right?

I do not believe that an officer can "reasonably believe" that he needs to disarm every CHL he encounters for his own protection. Running serials further impeaches the claim that the disarming was done for protection.

God bless my brothers and sisters working the street. I wouldn't trade jobs any more than they would trade for mine.

Kevin

Actually, its reasonable suspicion and probable cause that bear the burden of training and experience. The reasonable belief for purposes of disarming is not held to that.

I don't really like them disarming motorists either, but clearly they legally can. Doesn't matter if I like it or not.