Come September 1st am I REALLY ok on campus?

[surferdaddy]

I know SB 1907 goes into effect on September 1st, I am very interested in protections it may or may not provide. I attend a certain large university in the DFW area and I am oh so tired of feeling like a criminal when I park and secure my pistol in a campus parking area. I know this law is supposed to prevent disciplinary action against CHL holders storing firearms on campus, but I have heard conflicting interpretations of the approaching law. I've heard that while it affords some level of protection, it lacks any punitive mechanism for organizations who are non compliant. I've also read that it provides no method for recourse if you are erroneously victimized by a offending organization.

I suppose that I just want to know if this law will protect me from a big 3 letter university in the Arlington area. I'm oh so tired of feeling like a fugitive.

Thank you all for any insight, I really stink at legal stuff.
Surfer

[surferdaddy]

Uhhhh, Nutin but crickets?

[RoyGBiv]

1907 seems quite clear and concise to me...

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83 ... 01907F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is
amended by adding Section 411.2032 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2032. TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OF FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION BY LICENSE HOLDERS IN PRIVATE VEHICLES ON CERTAIN
CAMPUSES. (a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Campus" means all land and buildings owned or
leased by an institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education.
(2) "Institution of higher education" and "private or
independent institution of higher education" have the meanings
assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code.
(b) An institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state may not
adopt or enforce any rule, regulation, or other provision or take
any other action, including posting notice under Section 30.06,
Penal Code, prohibiting or placing restrictions on the storage or
transportation of a firearm or ammunition in a locked, privately
owned or leased motor vehicle by a person, including a student
enrolled at that institution, who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under this subchapter and lawfully possesses the
firearm or ammunition:
(1) on a street or driveway located on the campus of
the institution; or
(2) in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking
area located on the campus of the institution.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2013.

[GlockDude26]

my question to you would be how is anybody ever going to know if you don't tell them???? ecspecially at a school parking lot, it's not uncommon to see students digging around in their car looking for books, papers, etc. putting your pistol away in a lockbox or car safe wouldn't look any diferent from outside the car. i know someone who went all through college stashing his/her weapon under the seat and never had any issues even before the law.

[JALLEN]

And UT Alumni Band Day is tomorrow! What timing!

BTW, if anyone watches the UNM/UT game, the old fat man in the endzone carrying the Longhorn Alumni Band banner is me.

[texanjoker]

my question to you would be how is anybody ever going to know if you don't tell them???? ecspecially at a school parking lot, it's not uncommon to see students digging around in their car looking for books, papers, etc. putting your pistol away in a lockbox or car safe wouldn't look any diferent from outside the car. i know someone who went all through college stashing his/her weapon under the seat and never had any issues even before the law.

One way would be if your car is broken into on campus and you file a police report they will find out.

[cb1000rider]

[quote="surferdaddy"]I've also read that it provides no method for recourse if you are erroneously victimized by a offending organization. /quote]


This is generally true of lots of parts of criminal law. Especially in dealing with law enforcement. As long as there is a reasonable case for the officer might not have known, there isn't going to be a lot of recourse for a false arrest. And to be honest, we have so many laws, who expects anyone to know all of them?

Are you worried about being arrested or the university invoking an administrative action? I see the arrest the larger of the two, mainly because the administrative action is local and it would eventually get squashed...

[surferdaddy]

I'm not concerned about being arrested so much, mostly just about being expelled. It's been a long road to get to this school and all the while I was attending Jr college, I just kinda risked it. Never had any issues but was always a bit paranoid about a wreck or having my car broken into. Heck, even coming out to my car to see a campus k9 standing there.

I'd just really hate to face expulsion this late in the game. Nothing will stop me from at least having my pistol in my car. I go to school early in Arlinton (which can be a bit rough) and go straight to work night shifts in Irving (which can be rougher ), definitely need my pistol.

I guess I have just heard a lot about schools ignoring the new law and taking disciplinary action anyhow.

[ETXEMT]

My school regularly searches cars in the parking lot with k9i's, and searches cars

[drumbdummer]

And UT Alumni Band Day is tomorrow! What timing!

BTW, if anyone watches the UNM/UT game, the old fat man in the endzone carrying the Longhorn Alumni Band banner is me.

I don't watch the games but what did you play? I am not an alumni of that U but I am a band nerd!

[JSThane]

My school regularly searches cars in the parking lot with k9i's, and searches cars

Unless your school is on a military base or inside a prison, they can't legally do that. They can walk the dog -through- the parking lot, look in windows and have the dog sniff the outside, but without a search warrant or probable cause a crime was committed (and one of a very few specific exemptions allowed by the Supreme Court), they are on dubious grounds at best, and subject to massive liabilities and possible criminal prosecutions themselves.

Now, whether the local judicial establishment lets them get away with this or not is another thing but warrantless, PC-less searches are highly illegal.

[jmra]

My school regularly searches cars in the parking lot with k9i's, and searches cars

Unless your school is on a military base or inside a prison, they can't legally do that. They can walk the dog -through- the parking lot, look in windows and have the dog sniff the outside, but without a search warrant or probable cause a crime was committed (and one of a very few specific exemptions allowed by the Supreme Court), they are on dubious grounds at best, and subject to massive liabilities and possible criminal prosecutions themselves.

Now, whether the local judicial establishment lets them get away with this or not is another thing but warrantless, PC-less searches are highly illegal.

The HS where I work brings dogs through a couple times a year. If the dog hits on a car they ask the driver to open the vehicle and allow a search.
If it is a staff member and they refuse they are no longer a staff member (charter school - at will contracts - agreed to allow search of vehicle in work agreement). Not sure about the discipline if a student refused. At a minimum their on campus driving privilege would be revoked.
I assume the police would get a warrant at this point or with the dog alerting on the car is that enough PC to proceed without consent from the owner?

[b322da]

My school regularly searches cars in the parking lot with k9i's, and searches cars

Unless your school is on a military base or inside a prison, they can't legally do that. They can walk the dog -through- the parking lot, look in windows and have the dog sniff the outside, but without a search warrant or probable cause a crime was committed (and one of a very few specific exemptions allowed by the Supreme Court), they are on dubious grounds at best, and subject to massive liabilities and possible criminal prosecutions themselves.

Now, whether the local judicial establishment lets them get away with this or not is another thing but warrantless, PC-less searches are highly illegal.

The HS where I work brings dogs through a couple times a year. If the dog hits on a car they ask the driver to open the vehicle and allow a search.
If it is a staff member and they refuse they are no longer a staff member (charter school - at will contracts - agreed to allow search of vehicle in work agreement). Not sure about the discipline if a student refused. At a minimum their on campus driving privilege would be revoked.
I assume the police would get a warrant at this point or with the dog alerting on the car is that enough PC to proceed without consent from the owner?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends.

With respect to dogs alerting on drugs, SCOTUS has recently said:

“The question—similar to every inquiry into probable cause—is whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime,.. A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test.”

More: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 7_5if6.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 4th Amendment only requires that a search be "reasonable." There is often no "bright line" distinguishing a good search from a bad search -- each case must be analyzed with the basic test in mind -- it must be reasonable.

LEOs and citizens would much prefer a clear line on issues like this. The courts often recognize that sometimes this is simply not possible. This decision leaves plenty for courts to do in the future.

Jim

[Vol Texan]

my question to you would be how is anybody ever going to know if you don't tell them???? ecspecially at a school parking lot, it's not uncommon to see students digging around in their car looking for books, papers, etc. putting your pistol away in a lockbox or car safe wouldn't look any diferent from outside the car. i know someone who went all through college stashing his/her weapon under the seat and never had any issues even before the law.

One way would be if your car is broken into on campus and you file a police report they will find out.

Another is if you find yourself in a situation while on campus (e.g. just got back to your car from class), where you have to pull and use your handgun to defend your life. I'm sure it will be come well-known at that point.

[JSThane]

My school regularly searches cars in the parking lot with k9i's, and searches cars

Unless your school is on a military base or inside a prison, they can't legally do that. They can walk the dog -through- the parking lot, look in windows and have the dog sniff the outside, but without a search warrant or probable cause a crime was committed (and one of a very few specific exemptions allowed by the Supreme Court), they are on dubious grounds at best, and subject to massive liabilities and possible criminal prosecutions themselves.

Now, whether the local judicial establishment lets them get away with this or not is another thing but warrantless, PC-less searches are highly illegal.

The HS where I work brings dogs through a couple times a year. If the dog hits on a car they ask the driver to open the vehicle and allow a search.
If it is a staff member and they refuse they are no longer a staff member (charter school - at will contracts - agreed to allow search of vehicle in work agreement). Not sure about the discipline if a student refused. At a minimum their on campus driving privilege would be revoked.
I assume the police would get a warrant at this point or with the dog alerting on the car is that enough PC to proceed without consent from the owner?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends.

With respect to dogs alerting on drugs, SCOTUS has recently said:

“The question—similar to every inquiry into probable cause—is whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime,.. A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test.”

More: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 7_5if6.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 4th Amendment only requires that a search be "reasonable." There is often no "bright line" distinguishing a good search from a bad search -- each case must be analyzed with the basic test in mind -- it must be reasonable.

LEOs and citizens would much prefer a clear line on issues like this. The courts often recognize that sometimes this is simply not possible. This decision leaves plenty for courts to do in the future.

Jim

A drug-sniffing dog is regarded as "seeing" with his nose. Thus, to the dog, a baggie of marijuana in the glove compartment or under the seat would be regarded as being as "visible" as if the handler/officer had visually seen it laying on the dash.

When it comes to things that are NOT a crime to possess, merely "seeing," whether with eyes or nose, is NOT sufficient cause to search without a warrant. Consent MUST be obtained. A judge might issue a warrant, but if it comes out that the dog is also trained to alert to non-contraband materials, such as gunpowder residue, the whole thing can get thrown out and the owner of the vehicle can sue pretty much anyone involved.

I would go so far as to say that even in "gun free zones," having a canine alert to the smell of powder is NOT sufficient, given that it is NOT a crime to use the same vehicle to go to the school on weekdays, and then the range on weekends. Go shooting Sunday afternoon, take the guns home to clean that evening, still have the smell of powder in the trunk on Monday morning when the dog alerts. NOT sufficient cause to search, and NOT sufficient cause for a search warrant for the vehicle.

All that being said, the time to raise these issues is before they run a gun-sniffing dog on your car, not afterwards. Before, you're likely to raise a lot of eyebrows, and possibly generate ill-will with anti-gun school employees. Afterwards, you're looking at a lot of hassle, and a lot of money, to fight whatever trumped-up excuse they find, then more hassle and more money when you seek restitution for illegal search, illegal arrest, illegal seizure, etc.