TexasCHLforum.com

I suggest being as honest with police as they're required to be with us.

That might not be a good idea.

The police are allowed to lie, for example, in stings. We are not allowed to lie to the police about our identity or a material fact in a criminal investigation.

- Jim

Fair is fair.

Life isn't fair. Actions are either legal or illegal.

If you want to be evasive or lie to police officer, let me know how it works out for you.

- Jim

So far. So good.

seamusTX wrote:Welcome to the forum.

RepRaider wrote:By having a CHL have I waived any of my rights regarding a consent to search?

No.

If the officer, as they often do, asks to search my vehicle, can I still say no until they get a warrant?

Yes and no. If you do not consent to a search, the officer can still search without a warrant if he has probable cause that you are committing a crime.

A warrant is required only when the vehicle is stationary and unoccupied.

It is not on offense to have a concealed handgun when you have a CHL, and it is not an offense for anyone to have a concealed handgun in a car if they meet the conditions specified in Penal Code 46.02. Therefore, having a concealed handgun in a vehicle is not probable cause for a search.

- Jim

This is hit the nail on the head. Never consent to search if you have done nothing wrong. Seamus is correct in that an officer can get a warrant with PC of a crime. However, there is an exception to the 4th amendment called the Automobile exception. Under this, a LEO can dispense with the warrant requirement of the 4th amendment and search the car with PC. However, he can only search the vehicle in regards to what his PC leads him to believe. Example: if the officer has PC to believe there are drugs in the car, he can search anywhere in the passenger compartment. I digress, just don't consent to a search if you know you haven't done anything criminal. It makes our jobs easier when we hit the court room.


remember, this isn't legal advice

Do you want the cops ripping up the inside of your car. God forbid they bring in the Sniffer dog, if they even get a "Whiff" of something they will cut up your upholstery looking for "Drugs". If they find nothing, good luck collecting a check from the City.

I have an Airport security dog go nuts on my bag in Germany, because "I assume" I used to use that bag at the range, even though its been through the wash and hadnt been used in months. They did a Swab test, took everything out (Nothing but Cameras and Socks) and x-rayed it twice, and patted me down.

I want to chime in on this... a few years back I was stopped for speeding, my one and only time. I had my handgun on the passenger seat covered by clothes. It was concealed.

I was asked to step out of the vehicle and stand between my vehicle and the police car. The officer asked for my ID and I presented my DL and CHL. He asks if I'm armed and I say no. He asks where my weapon is, and I say it's concealed on the passenger seat.

Hypothetical (1) - By telling the officer my handgun was concealed on the passenger seat, could he legally retrieve and secure the handgun even though it's no longer physically on my person, even without my consent???

Hypothetical (2) - If I had told the officer that I did not have a handgun, could he legally search my vehicle to verify, even without my consent???


I'm not advocating lying, but I've heard many stories of cops abusing the ability to retrieve and secure a CHL's handgun 'for safety reasons.' -- But, if you say there is no handgun, they have no reason to go in your vehicle without a warrant or PC... therefore preventing any potential abuse by the officer.

I know this situation can have many variables... but this seems like an easy way to prevent your sidearm from ever being in Police hands during a stop.

What do y'all think?

McKnife wrote:Hypothetical (1) - By telling the officer my handgun was concealed on the passenger seat, could he legally retrieve and secure the handgun even though it's no longer physically on my person, even without my consent???

Hypothetical (2) - If I had told the officer that I did not have a handgun, could he legally search my vehicle to verify, even without my consent???

Probably yes, in both cases.

A traffic stop is an arrest, and police have broad leeway to secure the scene of an arrest [New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)].

The U.S. Supreme Court drew a line recently at searching the vehicle of a subject that had been handcuffed and placed in a police vehicle [Arizona v. Gant, (2008)].

Besides, what could you do about it?

- Jim

You have received a lot of very good advice here. Some of it is not as good, but other than the question of lying, no one has told you anything illegal, as far as I can tell.

My answer is to always tell an officer I do not consent to a search. If he continues to talk, make an unequivocal statement that you want a lawyer before you say anything more to the officer. THEN SHUT UP and do whatever the nice policeman says to do, physically. Do not fight or argue with him. You cannot win on the street and you are on camera and it will make you look bad in court. If the officer has probable cause to perform a search, he will do so. He might or might not get a warrant since there is no need for one (cars are an exception to the warrant rule because their very mobility makes the search fall into exigent circumstances).

As a police officer, when I wanted to search a car, I almost always did so. I tried my best to get consent because written consent is hard for the defense to beat in court. If I could not get consent, or the consent was shaky (driver no the owner of the car for example), I relied on my probable cause. Or, I let the car go (and did some with several I was utterly convinced had illegal property in them but I did not feel confident enough of the probable cause).

The reason for my advice is in the court trial. If you give consent, the search is legal (and it is amazing how many people give consent knowing there is stuff in the car because they think the cop won't search if they are cooperative). If you do not give consent, thent he search has to stand on the officer's probable cause. It is much easier to convince a judge that something is not probable cause than to convince him it is. Many cops will jump the gun because every other cop would agree and know they had something, not realizing the "average reasonable person" that probable cause is supposed to be based on does not have 5 to 20 years of police patrol experience. Most cops write very poor reports that will not stand up in court. Make them do their jobs right, whether you have anything to hide or not.

There is an old humorous training video on how some cops wrote reports that you might find interesting. Go to Buck Savage and select videos from the menu on the left. The one named "Saw Drunk, Arrested Same" is how to not write an arrest report and testify in court. You might like some of the others also (as all the old officers on the board will recognize the name and get some good laughs from).

WARNING: I can't think of anything that doesn't meet the ten year old daughter rule in these videos, but I cannot swear they all will. Watch them in private first, please.

srothstein wrote:There is an old humorous training video on how some cops wrote reports that you might find interesting. Go to Buck Savage and select videos from the menu on the left. The one named "Saw Drunk, Arrested Same" is how to not write an arrest report and testify in court. You might like some of the others also (as all the old officers on the board will recognize the name and get some good laughs from).

These are great. One of my Sgts was invited to teach report writing at our academy class. He pulled them up and also brought both good and bad reports he had come across his desk that week. We were drilled pretty hard, and my dept has probably a tougher selection process than many others I've tested with previously. On the reports we wrote in the academy class, one of the ADA's, fiery female attorney who is dang good at her job, came and did a cross and re-cross examination on us.

Some of us (especially me since I love to argue) got DESTROYED by her. She made a good defense attorney and opened my eyes to how our reports can get used in court. Much of court is smoke and mirrors to eek a shadow of a doubt out of a jury - but I still value the process. I want 13 people convinced (or 7 for lower courts) that I made the right call in charging a person with a violation.

I think the best thing to keep in mind is that if an officer has legal standing to search, he doesn't need your permission. All the old stuff about "Well, I can just go get a warrant" is just that: stuff.

Now, many officers will ask consent even if they have probable cause, partly to gauge your response. Not your answer ("yes" or "no"), but your response (nervousness, anxiety, irritation, anger, exasperation...) All those things help him know if he's onto something. Such responses are not generally admissible, and can't justify a search in themselves, but even over-zealous officers who think the 4th amendment is just an irritating obstacle, still like to know if they're wasting their time, or should move onto the next stop.

It is much easier to convince a judge that something is not probable cause than to convince him it is.

I'm gonna remember that one.

If one (me for instance) has nothing illegal in my vehicle - how often in such a scenario where "I give my consent to a search" will there be a horrendous outcome, that is say, they ruin upholstery/create damage, etc.

Wouldn't it be simpler to give consent, be held up on my journey for a bit, and then go about my merry way - none the worse for wear?

Am I being hopelessly naive?

I find it difficult to believe LEO's will, as a matter of course, mistreat people.

Of course, I don't look, behave or in any way present myself as a street type criminal. I'm a middle aged, (O.K. a little more than middle-aged) well spoken, normally dressed bald, white guy. So my profile, if you will, is rather non-threatening...so I don't feel threatened by such a search.