TexasCHLforum.com

A few months ago, I got pulled over. I handed the officer my chl, and advised him my handgun was in center console, plus shotgun and rifle in back seat. He asked me to step out. He then asks if he can look at the pistol to make sure it's legal, but not touch it. I said sure, as I want to appear compliant. A few minutes later, another officer arrives. At this point the first officer begins pulling my guns out, one by one, and calling the numbers in and measuring the barrel lengths. He never asked to do this. When I filed a formal complaint, the chief told me that possessing legal weapons is probable cause for detention and search, and that there was a supreme court decision backing that up. I say they violated my 4th amendment. Thoughts?

Once you allowed him to look at the first weapon, you effectivly consented to search.

You can revoke consent to search at any time. But if consent search that has been done up to that point reveals anything leading to probable cause, they may no longer need your consent to continue search

This may or may not have anything to do with OP- just responding to RPbrown

Blow it off and live your life. Next, please.

the chief told me that possessing legal weapons is probable cause for detention and search, and that there was a supreme court decision backing that up

Stuff like this always fascinates me Is this really true?

IANAL but I thought probable cause was a reason suspicion of wrong doing. Detecting an odor of marijuana is probable cause for attempting to confirm the possession of an illegal drug (at least in Texas).

How can some legal activity be PC for an illegal one?

Where was this and were the officers city, county or state?

CJD wrote: He then asks if he can look at the pistol to make sure it's legal, but not touch it.

Did you ask what he meant by legal? Sounds like a big fishing expedition to me.

A-R wrote:You can revoke consent to search at any time. But if consent search that has been done up to that point reveals anything leading to probable cause, they may no longer need your consent to continue search

This may or may not have anything to do with OP- just responding to RPbrown

Well said.

If you don't file an official complant and sue (or convince a DA to prosecute) then he can do whatever he wants.

chasfm11 wrote:

the chief told me that possessing legal weapons is probable cause for detention and search, and that there was a supreme court decision backing that up

Stuff like this always fascinates me Is this really true?

IANAL but I thought probable cause was a reason suspicion of wrong doing. Detecting an odor of marijuana is probable cause for attempting to confirm the possession of an illegal drug (at least in Texas).

How can some legal activity be PC for an illegal one?

This is exactly what I said. It was in Montgomery, Texas, and a city officer. Yeah there was nothing found that would have made them not need consent. He was a old Houston officer, and Houston was the precinct that decided to arrest motorist with weapons under MPA anyway, so they don't seem to actually care what the law says in my eyes. I just wanted to complain to show that that would not be allowed up here, but then the chief backed him up and spewed his garbage.

Beiruty wrote:Blow it off and live your life. Next, please.

This Is the problem, is people blowing off police misconduct. We need to stand up to those who think they can do what they please, they need to know that they work for the people.

Yeah I wouldn't have let him search. And the chief had a very misconstrued understanding of probable cause.

CJD wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

the chief told me that possessing legal weapons is probable cause for detention and search, and that there was a supreme court decision backing that up

Stuff like this always fascinates me Is this really true?

IANAL but I thought probable cause was a reason suspicion of wrong doing. Detecting an odor of marijuana is probable cause for attempting to confirm the possession of an illegal drug (at least in Texas).

How can some legal activity be PC for an illegal one?

This is exactly what I said. It was in Montgomery, Texas, and a city officer. Yeah there was nothing found that would have made them not need consent. He was a old Houston officer, and Houston was the precinct that decided to arrest motorist with weapons under MPA anyway, so they don't seem to actually care what the law says in my eyes. I just wanted to complain to show that that would not be allowed up here, but then the chief backed him up and spewed his garbage.

Beiruty wrote:Blow it off and live your life. Next, please.

This Is the problem, is people blowing off police misconduct. We need to stand up to those who think they can do what they please, they need to know that they work for the people.

CJD, The only thing I recommend is if you fee so strongly about your case, file a Federal civil suit.

Sir asw a former LEO I appreciate your job and understand your request officer, but I do not ever answer law enforcement questions without an attorney present and am involking my right to remain slient. I will not resist in any way but I never consent to a search of my person, my vehicle, or my home. If I am being legally detained please conclude your business and release me to be on my way sir. Respectfully.

I've said the above twice.
Once released with a warning, once getting a ticket.
But both times it completely ended the stop.

I got this from,

http://www.flexyourrights.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Moby, I'm confused by the last line of your statement. Shouldn't it read " if I am not being legally detained"? I appreciate the clarification.

There are two points that I think need to be covered. First and foremost, ask the chief for the case. I am unaware of any case that says that mere possession of weapons is probable cause for anything. He may be misconstruing the Terry case, which was based on an officer observing a bulge he thought to be a weapon. This was not ruled as probable cause, but did make a pat down frisk for weapons reasonable, based on protecting the officer's life. There is a lot more to it, and the search is really very restricted.

Secondly, most of us missed a point about the search. You can give consent for a search or deny. You can also give a very limited permission, which is what happened in this case (as described by CJD). Note that the description was permission to look at the one gun without touching it. There was no permission to look at the guns in the back or to move any guns. This makes the rest an illegal search unless there was some other probable cause. I emphasize that this is dependent on CJD's description because the exact wording of the question asked and how it was answered may make a big difference in the case. For example, did he say he would not touch it or did he say he would not take it? One let's him handle it inside the car and the other does not.

Other than that, I agree with the other posters that a polite no is the correct answer.