Does CHL count as probable cause?

[JALLEN]

No point in worrying about it now. Unless the incident was recorded, all you do is touch off a liar's contest, who said what when to who. The officer may have "made notes" even.

I predict if asked about it now, the officers story will be perfectly proper.

[CJD]

Thanks for all of your responses. I was just wondering what everyone thought. Next time I will flat out refuse consent to any search.

[Jumping Frog]

Thanks for all of your responses. I was just wondering what everyone thought. Next time I will flat out refuse consent to any search.

Then you received an inexpensive lesson that could save you from considerable trouble sometime down the road.

[Jumping Frog]

No point in worrying about it now. Unless the incident was recorded, all you do is touch off a liar's contest, who said what when to who. The officer may have "made notes" even.

I predict if asked about it now, the officers story will be perfectly proper.

Yep. Exactly why I carry a voice recorder.

[chasfm11]

No point in worrying about it now. Unless the incident was recorded, all you do is touch off a liar's contest, who said what when to who. The officer may have "made notes" even.

I predict if asked about it now, the officers story will be perfectly proper.

Yep. Exactly why I carry a voice recorder.

Me, too. I use it mostly to aid my failing memory. I think of things at times when I don't have the means to write them down and have found that an hour later, I'm completely unable to recall the thought that I had. But I would start it as soon as an encounter of any kind begins, with and LEO or otherwise. You just never know when it might come in handy later. It completely removes the "he said, she said" from the equation.

[RoyGBiv]

Yep. Exactly why I carry a voice recorder.

I have this app on the home screen of my phone.. Two quick taps and I'm recording.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... talk&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[flechero]

Mind if I ask what you guys carry for a recording device? I like the idea of having something at hand.

[RoyGBiv]

Mind if I ask what you guys carry for a recording device? I like the idea of having something at hand.

My smartphone... see post above.. 1 minute before you asked
I was reading your mind...

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

That's the first thing that jumped out at me too. I am not a legal scholar, but I'm betting that the chief wasn't either. I would have asked him to cite book, chapter, and verse. I'm not buying that lawful possession of a firearm constitutes probable cause. By presenting his CHL, the OP removed any doubt that he was lawfully in possession of his firearms. I realize that his CHL doesn't testify to his ownership of those items, but it does testify to his being an upright citizen who is officially sanctioned to carry one. And if he is an upright citizen in lawful possession of his pistol, the odds are very much against his being A) unlawfully in possession of a long gun; and B) in possession of an "illegal" gun.

Some cops are oath-keepers by nature—whether or not they are members of Oath Keepers—and others seem to believe that they are not held to the same constitutional standards as a "mere" citizen. I am of the opinion that the former probably outnumber the latter, but the problem is that very few people remember the problem-free interactions they have with LEOs because they are problem-free. What people remember are the encounters where they were unjustly dealt with and treated as if they were criminals who had to prove they weren't, and where what transpires during the stop—the illegal searches and bad attitude—are the process one must endure to prove innocence............which is particularly galling because the citizen knows they have done nothing wrong or illegal.

Those are the encounters that get remembered; and the problem with them is that they taint good cops with a bad rep they haven't earned and don't deserve. I WANT there to be amicable and trustworthy relationships between law enforcement and the people. Safe communities depend on it, and effective police work depends on a cooperative citizenry. When cops abuse their trust, it can only impact things for the worse, and their value to the community is diminished.

The problem with what happened to the OP is that the quality of the LEO "product" can be a direct reflection of the attitude and integrity of the department's leadership. In this particular case, the chief's dismissive attitude is reflected in that of his patrol officers. Granted, it isn't always that way. There are officers who are bad apples in their own right, despite their leadership's best efforts (witness Ft Worth PD's DWI problem), and there are officers who have massive integrity despite their leadership's lack of it (the Grapevine PD officer who affirmed my 2nd Amendment right to me in a Best Buy the other day — http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=60699" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). But all too often, poo flows downhill and that flow can be traced to the chief's mouth. It is that much harder to bear when the taxpayers who pay their salaries are the ones who have to put up with it.

[Jumping Frog]

Yep. Exactly why I carry a voice recorder.

I have this app on the home screen of my phone.. Two quick taps and I'm recording.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... talk&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have a speed dial set up that will record everything on a server.

Discussed here: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 01#p685601" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since I am using an iPhone with SIRI, I have it setup so I press the button to bring up SIRI and simply say "Call RECORDING". It will complete the connection and record my conversation, saved to an off-site server.

However, I also have a $25 small voice recorder I simply bought at Target for a backup plan. If I am in an actual emergency situation, I cannot call 911 with the phone and still record my conversation.

Here is a general voice recorder topic: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=56002" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[suthdj]

Use a method to lock your phone so they don't just turn it off.
Many new phones have internal batteries so they can't be pulled to turn off phone.

I say this as my troubled teen (now adult) had many an officer take his phone and read the texts, pull battery etc.... even had school principal take up phone and read private messages. Private is private regardless.

[TexasLookout]

I understand the concern for understanding specific wording by Law Enforcement Officers and a Person's "Bill of Rights".

A couple questions about Your Stop.
What was the stop for ?
What time of Day was the stop ?
Are you a resident of the county and or do you live near by and how far ?
Were there any other passengers in the vehicle ?


I understand the need to carry perhaps (2) Hand Guns Concealed if the Need Arises as one may Fail. However having the Long Guns in the Back Seat would from a Law Enforcement Stand Point Could make one wonder, and especially if they were loaded.

Even though I do not have a CHL , when traveling even just to the gun range. I secure all weapons as per FFL/ATF/FEDERAL GOVT. "state to state travel " statues in a Locked Box and or in Trunk and all being concealed.

With Modern Technology available to everyone including Law Enforcement Officials, can within seconds now pull up from Federal, State (s) , Licenses, Crime Record Data Banks, along with Fingerprint Data Banks in U.S.A. and other Co Operating Countries. So no matter what (only if it was expunged) and you were arrested for stealing bubble gum as a kid its still there. It really is to protect us all since the Bad Guys will stop at nothing for a free ride.


As mentioned above Fully Understanding ALL 10 Amendments to the Constitution and Since You Did have a Valid CHL lets not talk about this for a moment.

But for future stops searches let us be prepared and work with our Law Enforcement Officials as they are there to help us. But also let us not forget our "Bill of Rights".


TexasLookout

[suthdj]

I understand the concern for understanding specific wording by Law Enforcement Officers and a Person's "Bill of Rights".

A couple questions about Your Stop.
What was the stop for ?
What time of Day was the stop ?
Are you a resident of the county and or do you live near by and how far ?
Were there any other passengers in the vehicle ?


I understand the need to carry perhaps (2) Hand Guns Concealed if the Need Arises as one may Fail. However having the Long Guns in the Back Seat would from a Law Enforcement Stand Point Could make one wonder, and especially if they were loaded.

Even though I do not have a CHL , when traveling even just to the gun range. I secure all weapons as per FFL/ATF/FEDERAL GOVT. "state to state travel " statues in a Locked Box and or in Trunk and all being concealed.

With Modern Technology available to everyone including Law Enforcement Officials, can within seconds now pull up from Federal, State (s) , Licenses, Crime Record Data Banks, along with Fingerprint Data Banks in U.S.A. and other Co Operating Countries. So no matter what (only if it was expunged) and you were arrested for stealing bubble gum as a kid its still there. It really is to protect us all since the Bad Guys will stop at nothing for a free ride.


As mentioned above Fully Understanding ALL 10 Amendments to the Constitution and Since You Did have a Valid CHL lets not talk about this for a moment.

But for future stops searches let us be prepared and work with our Law Enforcement Officials as they are there to help us. But also let us not forget our "Bill of Rights".


TexasLookout

Really?

[Abraham]

"Even though I do not have a CHL , when traveling even just to the gun range. I secure all weapons as per FFL/ATF/FEDERAL GOVT. "state to state travel " statues in a Locked Box and or in Trunk and all being concealed."

In regard to long guns in the vehicle: If that's what you do, fine.

Are you suggesting I follow your policy (though not required by law) because doing so makes law enforcement feel more comfortable should we interact?

If I choose to carry my long guns in sight - what then?

[texanjoker]

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?

Really not enough info to go on to say if this was a legal search or not. Per your post you gave initial consent to let him look at the pistol. This got him into your car. He may have developed additional PC to search if he thought the long guns were too short, ect. Without hearing from his side, we will never know. If I were handling this complaint, the first thing I would do after reviewing your sworn complaint would be to pull any records of the stop via the dispatch system, copies of citations and the video or audio. Since most of TX records stops, the verbal statements would be there. I would want to know the reason for the stop, and what was said by both parties. I would specifically listen to the consent to search portion. In my experience parties sometimes forget what they may or may have not said. In addition, parties sometimes file false complaints. I am not saying you did, but when doing an internal investigation it is important to be thorough to establish the truth by following the evidence, where ever it may lead. I have done investigations that resulted in employee terminations and I have done investigations where the complaining party is flat out lying. All parties involved deserve an honest thorough investigation. I have been subject to false complaints and the audio of the contact immediately cleared me as the other parties were flat out lying. If the audio did not cover the search of the long guns, I would also want to know if the officer saw what he thought were short guns, ect. in plain site. This would be done by having the officer write a statement. A written statement is important because just like your sworn statement, if the officer lied, that would be documented and IMO an immediate cause for termination. If the officer did an illegal search we would be addressing that. If he did not, then you would be informed of that as well. As such, there is not enough info to say yes or no. As others have said you can revoke consent at any time. They will either stop per your request or let you know they have PC to continue.

It is the LEO"s job to make sure they do not violate the 4th.. it is there for a reason and one cannot abuse that power.