our new "Castle Doctrine"

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton


HKUSP45C
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:25 am

#16

Post by HKUSP45C » Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:49 am

Fair 'nuff. I stand corrected.

Although I would submit that a cop having pulled you over for speeding is not conducting a criminal investigation when he asks you "do you have any guns in the car?"

Maybe he is, I don't know.

Now if he came upon me slinking around someone's house and asked if I was in the process of buglarizing the premises the false statement during the investigation might stick if I said "no" and he could then prove that I was, in fact, burglarizing the place. Or, if he got called to my house for a disturbance and I told him I didn't hit my wife when all evidence and witnesses testified otherwise. But, again, as you said, I'd still only get charge with the DV Battery and not the lie. So, it seems that lying to a cop is illegal. It also seems it's impossible to or unlikely you'll be prosecuted, in Texas.

Cops ask a lot of questions to test waters or continue the "contact" in an effort to feel you out. I'm not sure that would qualify as an actual investigation though.

I'm not really arguing with you. You've shown you know what you're talking about. I'm just thinking out loud.

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#17

Post by seamusTX » Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:55 am

Prosecution for making false statements is generally a last resort when prosecutors know a defendant has done something wrong, but can't prove the more serious offense.

I doubt it would be prosecuted if there was no other serious offense involved.

- Jim


HKUSP45C
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:25 am

#18

Post by HKUSP45C » Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:50 am

I guess, now, I'm just curious if a prosecuter has ever charged someone with that statute violation. Ever. Filing a false report aside, of course.

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#19

Post by seamusTX » Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:07 am

Try this.

It's a really complicated case. I don't have time to figure it out this morning.

[Later]This case is not relevant to the discussion of lying to an officer.

The issue in this case was as follows: A woman called the police and complained that her live-in boyfriend hit her. In the boyfriend's trial, a police officer testified about what the woman said. She did not testify. The boyfriend was convicted.

As I understand it, the appeals court ruled that the defendant should have had the right to confront the witnesses against him, and the prosecution's case should not have relied on hearsay evidence.

- Jim


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4159
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

#20

Post by srothstein » Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:13 pm

HKUSP45C wrote:I guess, now, I'm just curious if a prosecuter has ever charged someone with that statute violation. Ever. Filing a false report aside, of course.
Yes, but it is usually done to the person who lies to help cover up the criminal act of another. As an example, think of me committing a crime, and you know I did it. Jim is the investigating officer and he asks you who did the crime and you lie and accuse Sam. If Jim finds out that you know me and lied to throw him off the track, he will probably file this charge on you.

I have never charged the actual criminal with this. Usually, like Jim says, I would charge him with the actual crime I am investigating instead.
Steve Rothstein


beaucoup ammo
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:19 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

#21

Post by beaucoup ammo » Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:16 pm

This may have been covered, but I failed to see it. As of now, if you hold a CHL, you're not limited to just 1 concealed handgun on your person. You can carry more than one (page 64.."Texas Concealed Handgun Laws" issued by Texas DPS). What about your vehicle under the new "Castle Doctrine?" Are you limited to 1 concealed handgun, or are you allowed more as long as they are concealed? If your vehicle is considered an extension of your "castle" are you not allowed what you would have in your home...which, in my case, is more than just 1.

Curious..thanks in advance for any input!
You can never have too much ammo or too much garlic!

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

#22

Post by seamusTX » Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:33 pm

The law does not limit you to one handgun in a vehicle (with or without a CHL). However, only the owner, lessee, renter or driver of the vehicle may have a handgun.

If the handgun is not in a holster on someone's body, it is effectively "on or about the person" of everyone in the vehicle. Therefore, if you have multiple people and multiple handguns in a vehicle, it is conceivable that those who are not drivers or owners could be charged with UCW.

I could see this happening, for example, if a bunch of kids were driving around with multiple handguns loose in the vehicle.

- Jim
[Edited to correct lessor => lessee.]
Last edited by seamusTX on Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.


beaucoup ammo
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:19 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

#23

Post by beaucoup ammo » Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:46 pm

Thanks, Jim! That's important information..many thanks! Johnny
You can never have too much ammo or too much garlic!

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

#24

Post by seamusTX » Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:24 pm

You're welcome.

We haven't heard much about this law since it went into effect, except for some police officials complaining that they can't arrest criminals caught with handguns in their vehicles (which is not true). I think some people are going to get in trouble with it, sooner or later.

- Jim


numist
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:08 am
Location: Dallas

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

#25

Post by numist » Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:45 pm

seamusTX wrote:You're welcome.

We haven't heard much about this law since it went into effect, except for some police officials complaining that they can't arrest criminals caught with handguns in their vehicles (which is not true). I think some people are going to get in trouble with it, sooner or later.

- Jim
It doesn't surprise me how little some officers keep up with current laws.

A while back I was at work overnight and was privileged to encounter and hold a guy that had climbed over our 6' iron fence that surrounds the property (locked gates and all). He had a nice empty duffle bag and a couple of screwdrivers on him as he was looking into all the cars.
When Dallas police arrived, they scratched their heads then had to call a sgt. who said that they couldn't charge him with trespass unless their were "no trespassing" signs posted.
Unfortunately that is not what the law states. If there is a fence, it carries the same weight as a sign. So does verticle purple marks on trees (don't have those either).
They took the guy for pub. intox just to get him out of here... he didn't appear to be under the influence of anything that I could tell. Needless to say we now have multiple signs all over the property to go with other preventative measures already in place.
Educate ignorance, reward excellence and severely punish stupidity.

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

#26

Post by seamusTX » Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:53 pm

numist wrote:A while back I was at work overnight and was privileged to encounter and hold a guy that had climbed over our 6' iron fence that surrounds the property (locked gates and all). He had a nice empty duffle bag and a couple of screwdrivers on him as he was looking into all the cars.
When Dallas police arrived, they scratched their heads then had to call a sgt. who said that they couldn't charge him with trespass unless their were "no trespassing" signs posted.
I got a similar piece of advice from a police officer when I had a garage break-in. She said the judge would let trespassers off unless there were "no trespassing" signs. Needless to say, there are now. Also nails on the top of the wooden fence.

- Jim


numist
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:08 am
Location: Dallas

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

#27

Post by numist » Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:44 pm

I got a similar piece of advice from a police officer when I had a garage break-in. She said the judge would let trespassers off unless there were "no trespassing" signs. Needless to say, there are now. Also nails on the top of the wooden fence.

- Jim
I really wish the judges would follow the law and stop making it up as they go along.
BTW, if you have a wooden fence, carpet nail strips tacked up about a half inch down from the top on the inside with 1 3/4" nailgun nails works wonders. The nails stick out a little on the outside but are really not very visible. Of course the business side (inside) is the real 'grabber'. The bad guys trying to climb over will only have to reach up there one time to leave a DNA sample,.. or a finger,.... or part of their hand... :evil2:
Educate ignorance, reward excellence and severely punish stupidity.

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

#28

Post by seamusTX » Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:19 pm

For the first year or so I went out every morning expecting to see part of an arm hanging over the fence. It didn't happen, and that was over ten years ago. We haven't had another break-in. I guess crooks are only so dumb.

- Jim


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4159
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

#29

Post by srothstein » Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:14 pm

numist wrote:A while back I was at work overnight and was privileged to encounter and hold a guy that had climbed over our 6' iron fence that surrounds the property (locked gates and all). He had a nice empty duffle bag and a couple of screwdrivers on him as he was looking into all the cars.
When Dallas police arrived, they scratched their heads then had to call a sgt. who said that they couldn't charge him with trespass unless their were "no trespassing" signs posted.
Unfortunately that is not what the law states. If there is a fence, it carries the same weight as a sign. So does verticle purple marks on trees (don't have those either).
They took the guy for pub. intox just to get him out of here... he didn't appear to be under the influence of anything that I could tell. Needless to say we now have multiple signs all over the property to go with other preventative measures already in place.
I hate when officers do not understand the laws and keep up with them. I know for a fact that they were taught the laws and are given an update every two years. OK, the update is not always as promptly as I want it, but TCLEOSE does mandate it.

And just so you know, in addition to the criminal trespass charge, they had a very good case of burglary of a motor vehicle. The case law says that any time you are attempting a crime and get caught in the attempt, the actual crime has been committed. Givne the entry with the tools, it is clear they had taken at least one overt act towards the commission of the crime (which would at least be the attempt).

And I am aware of at least one case where the district court found gulity for burglary of a building for crossing the fenceline to steal from the vehicles parked in the lot. It amazed me, but the definition of building is an enclosed structure including used for ornamentation. A fence is a structure and if it goes all the way around, it is an enclosed structure. At least the DA thought of it that way and the judge bought it.
Steve Rothstein


numist
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:08 am
Location: Dallas

Re: our new "Castle Doctrine"

#30

Post by numist » Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:54 pm


And just so you know, in addition to the criminal trespass charge, they had a very good case of burglary of a motor vehicle. The case law says that any time you are attempting a crime and get caught in the attempt, the actual crime has been committed. Givne the entry with the tools, it is clear they had taken at least one overt act towards the commission of the crime (which would at least be the attempt).

And I am aware of at least one case where the district court found gulity for burglary of a building for crossing the fenceline to steal from the vehicles parked in the lot. It amazed me, but the definition of building is an enclosed structure including used for ornamentation. A fence is a structure and if it goes all the way around, it is an enclosed structure. At least the DA thought of it that way and the judge bought it.
The guy looked into a number of cars but never put his hands on one. He seemed to know what he was doing and what the law was. I'm sure he's had contact with the system before if you know what I mean. Since he didn't actually attempt entry into the vehicles the RO's didn't want to go with criminal instrument for the screwdrivers. I was really shocked when they had to call to get the actual law on criminal trespass and even more shocked to know that the sgt. didn't have a clue either. I've now got a copy of the current PC printed out and waiting in case we run across that situation again.
Educate ignorance, reward excellence and severely punish stupidity.

Locked

Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”