Expired CHL - Vehicle searched

[Baba Louie]

What an attitude!

Yes it is an attitude. One I've cultivated over my lifetime. And one that might be germaine to the reason Adrianos was stopped.

I'm not castigating evil intent onto Adrianos, nor am I flaming him; simply pointing out that a vehicle can be, and is a (useful) tool that kills more people in America annually than (ahem) deadly firearms. You treat your firearms with knowledgable respect, you are plenty aware of what's going around you and what you are doing when you employ them, be it range time, cleaning them or carrying them, do you not? (rhetorical) And yet, accidents do happen, usually when you're not aware of one thing or another. Likewise, it behooves one to KNOW what's going on when behind the wheel.

So, Adrianos, if I came off a bit abrupt in my initial post, I offer an apology.

And Hugh, thanks for straightening me out. I need to be aware and stay cognizant of how what I say and what I do might negatively affect others around me. Be it driving a 2500# vehicle, owning and using firearms or posting on THR.

 

[armedandsafe]

A friend of mine has a pretty good answeer for the "Do you know how fast..." question. He keeps his GPS turned on and glanced at the speed bar when the cop lit him up. He was 1 mph UNDER. After a discussion on the subject, cop backed off. (The stop was at a speed trap in a small town.)

Pops

 

[GunnySkox]

Houston-area cops have a reputation for this sort of thing. Lot of good ones though.

Uh..

One of these things is not like the other...
One of these things just isn't the same..

One of these things is not like the other...
One of these things just doesn't be-long...

~GnSx

 

[big44]

The question comes to mind, "Who watches the police?" It seems to me this officer was just ticked off because he had to stop you. I know when I was in law enforcement there was always one or two officers who, if their teams lost, or they had a fight with their wives, whoever they stopped was going to get a ticket. I'm not cop bashing here, but it's a fact.

Every community needs to have some kind of citizen accountabilty for their police officers and other public servants in cases like this. If the officer done his/her job then there's nothing for them to worry about. The big problem is with many officers is once they get a badge it goes to their head.

 

[Baba Louie]

The big problem is with many officers is once they get a badge it goes to their head.

I'll bet it's safe to say that every LEO on this board (and others I frequent) all know of at LEAST one or two younguns on their force with this 'badge heavy' attitude, just like every place I've ever worked has one azzhat who embarrasses the remainder of the staff.

Human nature.

Every community needs to have some kind of citizen accountabilty for their police officers and other public servants in cases like this.

Very well said big44

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

assuming that this incident happened exactly as described i'd say this was an illegal search. an expired CHL is definitely not probable cause to search a vehicle, by itself.

someone made a comment:

Once he removed you from your vehicle and handcuffed you, you were "arrested".

not necessarily. there's numerous case law that allows LEO's to handcuff without arresting. i think you're thinking about "de facto arrest".

if indeed this officer arrested him and searched his vehicle incident to arrest, in Texas (where this occurred), under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the officer cannot "unarrest" someone at the scene. they have to transport this person to jail and complete an Affidavit of Probable Cause for a Warrantless Arrest. then the citizen sees a judge, called "magistration."

a LEO cannot arrest, search incident to arrest, and "unarrest" the citizen at the scene in Texas.

i don't know all the details to this incident but if what really happened is exactly what was listed then it appears this is an illegal search.

best thing to do, if you feel your rights were violated, is to contact an attorney. i dont think an attorney specializing in state CHL law is the best one to contact for this. i'd look at someone who specializes in 4th Amendment cases.

 

[MechAg94]

Constables are not necessarily traffic cops. Their purpose is to provide LEO service for the courts. However, many of them do traffic duty to raise funds and pay for part of their budget.

A few phone calls to such as the TSRA would likely be a good place to start. I guess I was thinking of a written complaint, but I am not sure where the start.

They weren't HPD, but HPD is one of the more underpaid departments in the area last I heard.

 

[Delta608]

To all of you who whine about "cop bashing" in these forums, if there weren't so damn many cops that acted like these then maybe we wouldn't feel the need to "bash" them.

I use to whine about it, not anymore.....Here is a little story...

Ga. Trooper pulls a N.Y. driver over for speeding, slaps him upside his head and askes for his DL..The kid complies, the Trooper writers his ticket and gives it to the kid...Trooper walks over to the passenger side and whacks the passenger upside head..The passenger says, "what was that for?"..Trooper says. "Just fullfilling your wish". Kid says. "What wish..?" Trooper responds. "You know as soon as you had left you would have send to you friend, I wish he would have tried that with me"...

Well dude, your that passenger.......

 

[Mandirigma]

PS And for those firearms owners with negative comment about the LEOs in general due to the actions of a few individuals LEOs how would you like to be judged based on a few individuals who misuse firearms ?

We are. Everytime someone dies to inappropriate firearm use the gun control lobbyists are all over it for more gun control, neh?

AS I UNDERSTAND IT..........

When an officer asks to search a vehicle, and the driver refuses, the officer can call into the district attorney's office and get a VERBAL SEARCH WARRANT.

In other words, the D.A. goes to a judge, right there and then, and tells the judge the situation. The judge issues a search warrant. The DA Calls the Street officer, and VERBALLY gives the officers permission to search the vehicle based on the issuance of a search warrant.

and the part about the handcuffs IN MY MIND is NOT false arrest.... the cops get away with it by saying they did it to secure you for your own safety.

It's chickens****. Most officers will frisk you, and then put you in the backseat of a car UN-CUFFED until the vehicle search is completed.

 

[saltydog452]

I dunno, but I wonder if you had been arrested for a serious crime like possesion of a Klingon Battle Cruiser in your trunk, would the arrest have held water?

salty.

 

[Mandirigma]

I recently was a guest of Hotel Harris County (yea that means jail) I got caught for DWLS. Long story short had some financial difficulties and my license got suspended for failure to pay surcharges. My stay was for over 30 hours, I was let out on a Personal Recognizance bond.

That gave me some insight to how LEO's in the area operate. Basically, they DON'T care. I'm in jail with thieves and murderers, and I'm treated exactly the same way.

"You must have done SOMETHING wrong, because you're here ain't ya?" ok i get it. We're in jail so we're criminals. They make it a bad experience so that you don't WANT to go back.

I watched as they routinely made a guy (this is in the outprocessing tank) wait over and over again because he offered some officer attitude. O.K. fair enough. "We may have to be nice to you out there(something I've never personally seen), but THIS is OUR house."
Play by thier rules to get out. I also got to hear them beating him on the way out. I can imagine he offered them some fresh attitude so OBVIOUSLY he deserved it.

While we're outprocessing they do a batch of males then a batch of females and rotate. Some of my brilliant tank mates decide to look in the crack of the doors at the females passing in front of us. Out of no where one of the cops comes in yell "Tell me who the **** was looking at the door" When no answers he decides "Since no one has the balls to come forward you can just sit" We ended up getting passed up at least three times with more additions so we are almost shoulder to shoulder deep in the OUTPROCESSING tank.

But thats not the kicker. The same cop came back in and started ranting. I can't recall the exact words but I do remember a part distinctly. "Ya'll think you are bad because you are gangbangers...well I got news for you. I'm part of the biggest gang there is and Our color is Blue...."

Needless to say, based on that experience. I refuse to contribute to any LEO sponsored charity/event any further. Hell I peeled off the stickers given to me from past contributions. They will never get a dime from me other than my tax dollars. As to them protecting me or mine. I've never seen it happen. I've seen them come up AFTER the fact to take statements and etc. But never in time. Its scary to know that I also know how to MAKE them come faster. Simply say that someone was shot. They drag ass for robberies, but if there were shots fired they come running.

I will never count on a LEO to come to my aid. Its simple, I don't trust them. To me they will always be just another gang. I've been unfortunate enough to grow up around gangs so I understand how to survive around them. I will never respect a LEO in the area again. Thats not to say I won't offer them courtesy. I'm not a fool, I know how badly they can ruin my day if they feel like it.

It may be different where you live. I can only speak for my experiences. But now when I see an LEO I go into the same routine I do when I see any other gang member.

 

[JohnKSa]

Passed a clarification of the definition of "travelling" to be anytime you are in your car and driving. This replaced the discretionary and capricious definitions of "travelling" as made up on the spot or dictated by various LEO/county govs. You were travelling. You have a right, in Texas, to have a loaded handgun or firearm in the car without a CHL.

The new law is NOT a clarification of travelling although this is a common misconception.

I have repeatedly posted a quote from one of the legislators who penned the law stating very clearly that the new law does NOT define travelling.

It merely requires that a person who meets the criteria in the law be PRESUMED to be travelling. The ONLY practical effect of this law is that while previously the citizen had to prove that he was travelling, now the state must PRESUME that he is travelling unless they can present evidence to the contrary. In other words, the burden of proof has moved from the citizen to the state.

At least 3 DAs in TX (Harris county is one of them) have stated in writing that they intend to continue prosecuting gun in vehicle cases as they did before the law passed. This story should be clear evidence that the statements were not merely posturing. You can bet that the officers weren't wasting their time doing a thorough search for evidence that was going to be useless in court.

 

[AZRickD]

Hence the reason to decline to answer the polite interrogatories presented by your friendly police officer...

Where are you going?
Where are you coming from?

Perhaps, by your answers, they felt that IF they found a gun, you'd already admitted to not "travelling" as the statute in their eyes reads (their eyes, the prosecutors eyes, and maybe the judge's eyes).

Anybody want to tell us that we gun owners should just be nice and cooperate when pulled over?

One more thing. I have a problem with someone who is riled enough about an incident to post about it here, but not riled enough to do anything about it. And given your attorney's lazy attitude, I'd look for another one.

Rick

 

[elcaminos]

I've had my share of being pulled over, and most of the time they go pretty well when I just do what the officer says and cooperate with his questioning. Why is it foolish to answer the where-are-you-headed type questions? What's the proper way to deal with an officer when you get pulled over?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i've had different

experiences than some folks here apparently
been in some deep stuff and once caught have found the truth in conjunction with a good lawyer work well

 

[JohnKSa]

Hence the reason to decline to answer the polite interrogatories presented by your friendly police officer...

Quote:
Where are you going?
Where are you coming from?

This is the BEST way that the state can prove that you weren't travelling--get you do to it for them! If the answers you give make it clear that you are not travelling, you have defeated the presumption that would have prevented your prosecution.

 

[Bigreno]

I would recomend not filing a complaint with the daprtment and instead going directly to an atty. If everything happened the way you describe then legal action needs to be taken against these officers.

It is us versus them (in their own minds). We are expendable, in their eyes. Look at that tat and realize they WILL kill you, whether or not you're guilty of anything-- if they feel threatened, and they think doing so means they will go home that day.

As for some of the statements posted in this thread, all I can say is I have been educated. According to large percentage of members posting in this topic I or any number of co-workers may in fact BE the Devil. I am pretty sure that I am not but If it turns out that I am, I am sorry.

 

[saltydog452]

I have 'talked' myself into an arrest.

The officer was rude, arrogant, and about as abrasive as a cheese grater on knuckles. I got pretty well bent out of shape about this..hadn't been talked to that way since I was 18. I replied in kind. Although I was about three states away from home, I talked like I was on my front porch.

Fact is, gents and ladies, folks can be detained and arrested. The local Distric Attorney may/may not prosecute. You aren't going to get a letter of apology stating ' Woops, our bad, have a nice future'. They'll simply decline to persue the issue. Its up to you to get out the broom, dust pan and try to put the pieces back together.

Hell-of-it-is, it was over nothing. Just a couple of tired, overworked tetestrone fueled jerks who, for whatever reason, agreed to enter into a pis...g contest.

salty.

 

[ilcylic]

That's a really lousy experience, Adrianos.

Most of my police interaction experiences have been along those lines in terms of "power tripping" on the part of the officers. (Though there have been a few exceptions.)

I wish you the best of luck with whatever you decide to do from here on out.

 

[asknight]

Mandirigma, the guys doing the processing at jails are most certainly not LEOs. They are merely "jailors." Perhaps a good many of them are wanna-be LEOs. But to classify their behavior as representative of genuine LEOs is grossly incorrect.

On the topic, how did the arresting officer treat you?

 

[NukemJim]

Originally posted by NukemJim

PS And for those firearms owners with negative comment about the LEOs in general due to the actions of a few individuals LEOs how would you like to be judged based on a few individuals who misuse firearms ?

Posted by Mandirigma

We are. Everytime someone dies to inappropriate firearm use the gun control lobbyists are all over it for more gun control, neh?

I asked did you like being judged on other peoples actions not if it was done.

And if you do not like it when an illogical, unfair and prejudical act when it is done to you why do it to someone else?

NukemJim

 

[Travis Lee]

If I posted about an incident of a plumber, or an architect, or a Jehovah's Witness violating my civil rights unlawfully, for some bizarre reason BECAUSE being a plumber, architect, or Jehovah's Witness allowed them to do so with vitual legal impunity, would there suddenly be dozens of enraged, and offended responses that I was "plumber bashing"? Would there there be dozens of posts that "that's exactly what an architect did to ME"?

Would there be former Jehovah's Witnesses agreeing that something was terribly amiss since they had seen many similar instances?

Unsatisfied customers of plumbers, or architects can refuse service or fight a billing in court. People who don't like JW's can shut the door.

Unsatisfied customers of police can wind up arrested, falling down stairs at the station, doing years in prison, and sometimes DEAD.

I've heard and read stories by current and former police of planting evidence, losing evidence, perjury, and physical abuse of suspects (heh heh). Are THEY cop-bashing? Are they LIARS? In spite of that, The telling of particular incidents is repeatedly treated by some as libelous general accusations.

I can understand occasional incidents... Things happen.
Coverups are serious breaches of ethics. And the sheer abundance of valid incidents by law enforcement, I consider frightening.

That repeated mass over-reaction tells me that these stories hit a guilty nerve.

I want to have confidence that police charged with enforcing laws are behaving lawfully. I want to have confidence that police are policing their own. Is that so unreasonable?

When A plurality of posters I understand are current or former police agree about the bad reputation of a particular police department, I'm going with the smoke and fire theory.


--Travis--

 

[JohnBT]

"PS ...how would you like to be judged based on a few individuals who misuse firearms ? "

Are you saying that legal gun owners aren't judged daily by the press, the court of public opinion and the police because guns are misused by some people? Where do you live? I'm moving there.

John

 

[dfaugh]

Every community needs to have some kind of citizen accountabilty for their police officers and other public servants in cases like this. If the officer done his/her job then there's nothing for them to worry about.

Actually, this is a pretty novel idea that has some merit. Some kind of QUALIFIED (knowing the laws) civilian board, to oversee the actions of the police. Need some "pre-screening" so not everyone that felt they had a "grudge" for getting stopped for speeding, etc. could come before them. But for those FEW isolated cases (like OPs, if that's 100% of the story) could be addressed.

Let me be the 1st to say that I've MOSTLY had very good experience with the cops around here. (I did get one that was a bit overzealous--stopped me becasue the window tint on the car I was driving was "too dark" (it'd been that way for years)--technically he was right (they've changed the laws), but a warning would've been sufficient, instead of a ticket.) But, since he WAS adhering to the letter of the law, well, no harm, no foul.

And, when my youngest son was 19 ( but very immature) he himself got involved in a BAD situation (serious peer pressure from the wrong people), that could've gone very badly for him (Technically he could've been brought up on felony charges, even though he was only peripherally involved.) The local Sheriffs "requested" his presence (rather than coming to the house and taking him away in handcuffs. I delivered him to the local Sheriffs office, and they treated both he and I in a most professional manner. And, once they realized he was mostly a "victim of circumstance", they let him walk out the door with me. ('Course I think they knew I was steamed, and his life was gonna be more miserable with me than with them!)

On the other hand, both my kids(now 22 and 25 have been stopped for routine (almost silly) traffic) violations ( a broken mirror, which happened the night before, and because a passenger tossed a pop can out the window)...In both cases they were removed from the car and "patted down", which to me is a bit extreme, for a routine traffic stop. Had it been me, I'd probably gotten into trouble, as I would've raised Cain.

In short, I've always taught my kids to respect, and treat with respect any LEOs they encounter....but then I see some of the horror stories posted here. What CAN I say to them.

 

[cane]

The courts have held that a traffic stop is a brief encounter and doesn't constitute an arrest. My traffic stops average about 12 minutes, start to finish. The process of asking "routine" questions ie: where are you going/coming from? while you are looking for your paper work is part of a divided attention test. There are several steps in a DWI arrest and this is part of it. Once you told the officer you did not have a firearm in the car, he should have written the citation and allowed you to go on your way. Had he written the citation, and handed it to you, that would have completed the "brief encounter". By detaining you for at least 40 minutes, removing you from your vehicle and handcuffing you, would you as a reasonable person believe you were "arrested"? Now about a telephonic search warrant, tell me what PC the DA could, under oath, provide the judge? An expired CHL? One poster said he carried an expired hunting license, would that be PC to search his vehicle for poached game or illegal firearms. Lets carry this further, if you have a CHL, and are in a state that requires you to inform the officer that you are carrying, and you get stopped but don't have a handgun; Do you tell him you have a CHL but don't have a handgun? Or not say anything? Some states have your CHL crossed referenced to your DL so the officer may get that information when he calls in your DL. Or, as in this case, sees your CHL. Once the officer asked whether or not you had a handgun and you replied "No". Who among us believes (s)he has PC to remove you from your vehicle and conduct a non consent search?