A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

[talltex]

I too am inclined to say no to a search, since among other reasons, when my son attended the police academy his class was told never to consent to a search, especially by the DPS. OTOH, I am leery of escalating a stop into a confrontation and exchanging a warning for a ticket, as every time I've been stopped since I got my CHL I've been let go with a warning (except the one time mentioned above I got an apology). So, I would probably say no to a general search, but consent to something more specific or limited, like having a look at my guns in the case of the one post, or checking the serial numbers.

Here my issue with the whole thing. Why is a citizen exercising their rights "escalating" a situation, and an LEO asking a ton of unnecessary questions "good police work."

I think the should there be cooperation and understanding on BOTH SIDES. An LEO should be no more offended by someone exercising their rights then a citizen should be offend by an LEO asking unnecessary questions.


As long as LEO's don't get bent because I won't answers questions, I won't get bent because they ask them.



I rarely encounter LEO's anymore, but I have always respectfully declined to answer questions or let them search my car or come into my home.

[steveincowtown]

I too am inclined to say no to a search, since among other reasons, when my son attended the police academy his class was told never to consent to a search, especially by the DPS. OTOH, I am leery of escalating a stop into a confrontation and exchanging a warning for a ticket, as every time I've been stopped since I got my CHL I've been let go with a warning (except the one time mentioned above I got an apology). So, I would probably say no to a general search, but consent to something more specific or limited, like having a look at my guns in the case of the one post, or checking the serial numbers.

Here my issue with the whole thing. Why is a citizen exercising their rights "escalating" a situation, and an LEO asking a ton of unnecessary questions "good police work."

I think the should there be cooperation and understanding on BOTH SIDES. An LEO should be no more offended by someone exercising their rights then a citizen should be offend by an LEO asking unnecessary questions.


As long as LEO's don't get bent because I won't answers questions, I won't get bent because they ask them.

I rarely encounter LEO's anymore, but I have always respectfully declined to answer questions or let them search my car or come into my home.

Yes, but note your use of the word "should." I think some officers get their backs up at any perceived challenge to their authority. I don't know if I'm dealing with that kind of officer to start with so I consider the extent to which I assert my rights to be a risk assessment of cost and benefit. What price will I have to pay to assert my rights? I agree that things should be as you say, but that's not the way it is. There is a real risk that asserting your rights in every encounter will result in life changing consequences --for the worse.

I agree, it is very much a personal decision on what exercising a right is worth. What I always find very odd on this board is that when we talk about the 2nd Amendment there are people here who would (literally) give their life for it.

Then, when the subject changes to the 4th Amendment a certain percentage of folks immediately are willing to give up their rights just to keep from upsetting an LEO or because "they have nothing to hide, so why not."

If an LEO gets upset because I am lawfully carrying a weapon and won't give him consent to search that is on him, not me. I always decline respectfully (the sentence usually starts with "Officer, I mean this with no disrespect to you or the job your are trying to do...) and I expect the same respect in return. If an Officer cannot provide that respect he needs to find a new line of work.

For me personally no one right is more important to me than another. The are all my rights and I will exercise them as I see fit.

To each his own though!

[VMI77]

I too am inclined to say no to a search, since among other reasons, when my son attended the police academy his class was told never to consent to a search, especially by the DPS. OTOH, I am leery of escalating a stop into a confrontation and exchanging a warning for a ticket, as every time I've been stopped since I got my CHL I've been let go with a warning (except the one time mentioned above I got an apology). So, I would probably say no to a general search, but consent to something more specific or limited, like having a look at my guns in the case of the one post, or checking the serial numbers.

Here my issue with the whole thing. Why is a citizen exercising their rights "escalating" a situation, and an LEO asking a ton of unnecessary questions "good police work."

I think the should there be cooperation and understanding on BOTH SIDES. An LEO should be no more offended by someone exercising their rights then a citizen should be offend by an LEO asking unnecessary questions.


As long as LEO's don't get bent because I won't answers questions, I won't get bent because they ask them.

I rarely encounter LEO's anymore, but I have always respectfully declined to answer questions or let them search my car or come into my home.

Yes, but note your use of the word "should." I think some officers get their backs up at any perceived challenge to their authority. I don't know if I'm dealing with that kind of officer to start with so I consider the extent to which I assert my rights to be a risk assessment of cost and benefit. What price will I have to pay to assert my rights? I agree that things should be as you say, but that's not the way it is. There is a real risk that asserting your rights in every encounter will result in life changing consequences --for the worse.

I agree, it is very much a personal decision on what exercising a right is worth. What I always find very odd on this board is that when we talk about the 2nd Amendment there are people here who would (literally) give their life for it.

Then, when the subject changes to the 4th Amendment a certain percentage of folks immediately are willing to give up their rights just to keep from upsetting an LEO or because "they have nothing to hide, so why not."

If an LEO gets upset because I am lawfully carrying a weapon and won't give him consent to search that is on him, not me. I always decline respectfully (the sentence usually starts with "Officer, I mean this with no disrespect to you or the job your are trying to do...) and I expect the same respect in return. If an Officer cannot provide that respect he needs to find a new line of work.

For me personally no one right is more important to me than another. The are all my rights and I will exercise them as I see fit.

To each his own though!

For what it's worth, I believe those who think they have "nothing to hide" are refusing to face what the country has become. The person with "nothing to hide" does not exist in reality because the government now takes what isn't hidden and re-interprets it to serve whatever interest it is pursuing. So anything any normal person possesses is something they may try to hang you with. A gas container and empty bottles in your garage? Why you're a potential terrorist. Three guns in your safe? You've got an arsenal. And why does anyone "need" an AK-47? 1,000 rounds of .22 LR? You've got a cache of ammunition. Been reading websites about military tactics? Have a copy of The Constitution in your car? --ever seen the video of how the two LEO's react who find a copy of The Constitution while searching a woman's car? One actually asks the other if it is legal for her to have it.

When I was in the military there was a case off-base where a young man was accused of a horrific crime and the authorities practically ruined his life. The thing is, he didn't do it, and that fact only came out because they eventually caught the guy who did. On the scantiest of evidence the police decided this kid was a likely suspect and simply re-interpreted whatever they found in his home to fit the conclusion that he was guilty --and this, without finding a single thing that was illegal to own or possess. If the guilty party had not been caught --accidentally btw-- this kid would very probably have spent the most of, if not the rest of his life in prison.

The assumption that one has nothing to hide is no smarter than going outside at night by yourself to confront a prowler.

[AEA]

Yep, "nothing to hide" is totally different than "nothing to fear".

[Katygunnut]

"You do not have permission to search my vehicle. Is there anything else you need, officer, or can I go now?"

Did the trooper search the vehicle? Or just disarm the driver/CHL holder? No consent needed to disarm

Government Code 411.207.  AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) 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 disarming was accomplished when he had the driver exit the vehicle with the gun still inside. I would have locked the car doors and repeated that I was not consenting to any search.

I also don't like the question about "large amounts of cash". What crime is he investigating again? How does having a large amount of cash in any way relate to whether the driver was violating the speed limit?

My answer would have been no, by the way. I am not rich, so by definition I do not consider any amount of cash that I possess to be a large amount of cash. The LEO is asking for my personal opinion. He is not asking a factual question.

[carlson1]

It appears Government entity's have a lot of people brained washed into the fact that we are to give up our RIGHTS all in the name of SAFETY.

[gigag04]

Yikes.....careful there big guy.....you may not realize it, but you are starting to prove some of the points you obviously don't agree with.

I was thinking the same thing.

Be nice, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet. Nothing wrong with that

Survive working the hood for a few years and then say something about the above comments.

Until then, I couldn't care less about how you take that.

[Sangiovese]

In summary to the OP, it may have been fishing, but I don't see anything wrong with that. He was doing his job. He lost me on the disarming, even if a violator were in the car, but that is his choice. I don't think you could argue that were searched, as I think the courts and public opinion about armed individuals encountering police would leave the option to enter a vehicle to secure a weapon up to the officer in the situation.

The problem as I see it is that, according to the OP, the fishing expedition added an extra 10 minutes to the stop while he waited for the results of the serial number check. In my opinion, that's an illegal seizure.

Case law on point includes a SCOTUS holding (I can't think the case name off the top of my head) that detaining a driver for 10 minutes while waiting for a drug dog to show up (without probable cause) was an illegal seizure. It wasn't a search because the dog stayed on the exterior of the car, but it was an illegal seizure due to holding him longer than they would have if they hadn't been waiting for a drug dog. I think the same would apply while running a serial number. The officer has the right to disarm the OP. And although it's a lousy thing to do, he's probably in the clear for running the serial number... but only if he can do it without extending the stop unless he has PC.

[Scott in Houston]

I'm the OP, and have been too busy to participate in most of this discussion, but all I have to say is, "wow, I did not expect it to get this much discussion on here."

After reading all the comments, I've come away with a new view on how I may handle this in the future.

I am doing "ok" financially, so getting a ticket won't break the bank, and I've decided that the risk of getting that ticket is worth exercising my rights.
If this ever happens again, and I suspect it won't as it sounds more rare than common, but if it does... I plan on exiting the vehicle and locking it as described. I will not consent to a search or serial # check. I will ask what cause is there, and if the answer is what he told me on my stop of "it's a routine thing we do to check...etc."
I will ask what crime is am I suspected of related to my legally possessed and owned firearm.

I'm really upset about this stop. He was nice and polite, and I was exhausted, so while it was occurring, I didn't give it much thought honestly. At the time, my goal was to leave without a ticket. My new goal will be to leave without having my rights violated.

[carlson1]

Bad folks in every bunch. LEO's are no exception, especially if they have the attitude of killing everyone they stop. No traffic stop is routine and they should be ready for anything that might take place, but exiting the patrol car with the attitude of I am going to kill you is extreme.

All most makes you not want to teach children that the police are their friends. I am an ex State LEO in my other life and my youngest son is a LEO in an East Texas town. I ride out with him ever 45 days. I have never seen the attitude that has been shown here in this thread from any of those fine young men in that department.

I am PRO Police, but it makes me have second thoughts.

[SewTexas]

I have always said there are two types of LEOS, those who want to help people and bullies with badges. this is a fine example of the latter. I'm really dissapointed, I tend to expect more from our DPS. but, I'm not surprised. plan for the worst, hope for the best.

[smoothoperator]

Be nice, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet. Nothing wrong with that

Especially when you meet someone who says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

---

Be polite. Be professional.
But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

[Jaguar]

Bad folks in every bunch. LEO's are no exception, especially if they have the attitude of killing everyone they stop.

To be fair, he said he has "a plan to", not "I plan to". Nothing wrong with having a plan in case something were to hit the fan, it is the same preparedness I have when approached by "panhandlers" or other less desirable folks.

[somedudefromhouston]

All most makes you not want to teach children that the police are their friends. I am an ex State LEO in my other life and my youngest son is a LEO in an East Texas town. I ride out with him ever 45 days. I have never seen the attitude that has been shown here in this thread from any of those fine young men in that department.

This is the way I raised my son, that in the case of an emergency of any kind, you go to a fire station for help. They don't have the agenda that LEO do. If a kid needs help he will get as much as he needs from those guys.
The most ironic thing is that he is now inline to a state LEO!

[tomtexan]

Bad folks in every bunch. LEO's are no exception, especially if they have the attitude of killing everyone they stop. No traffic stop is routine and they should be ready for anything that might take place, but exiting the patrol car with the attitude of I am going to kill you is extreme.

All most makes you not want to teach children that the police are their friends. I am an ex State LEO in my other life and my youngest son is a LEO in an East Texas town. I ride out with him ever 45 days. I have never seen the attitude that has been shown here in this thread from any of those fine young men in that department.

I am PRO Police, but it makes me have second thoughts.

I'm glad to see that someone else recognized this besides me. Age and experience is a wonderful thing!