Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 6/26/2005 6:49:14 PM EDT
The Emu's plight, along with the dumbass DPS trooper who took that guys machine guns up in North Texas has got me wondering about my duties to respond to an LEO when questioned about legal activities:


Simple question: If stopped by an LEO and the officer asks if you have any weapons (rifles, pistols, machine guns, shotguns) in the car, do you have to tell him yes?

What if you say no and there are rifles and legal NFA weapons in the back in unlocked cases?

What if you say no, but the rifles, pistols and machine guns are in locked carry cases that cannot be opened by the LEO?

FACT scenario: ARFCOMer is stopped returning from the HUN farm outside of Corpus Christi! His AR-15s, Bolt gun, Uzi, Browning BAR and M2 Carbine are in locked starlight cases in the back of his Texas Cadillac (suburban). He tells the LEO that he has a CHL and that his carry weapon in under in a shoulder holster under his left arm. The officer, seeing the Starlight cases in the back, asks the ARFCOMer if he has any other weapons in the car?

What does the ARFCOMer have to disclose to the LEO?


What if our intrepid ARFCOMer says: No, there aren't any weapons in the car. Officer asks him "what's in the starlight cases" and the ARFCOMer responds "Nothing, they're locked"

What if the ARFCOMer responds that "the cases are locked and the contents of a locked case are none of your business unless you get a warrant"

It is my understanding that the contents of locked cases are none of the LEOs business and that they need a warrant to open them.

I think the real question is what do you have to reveal to a nosy LEO when your activities are lawful and the LEOs questions are intrusive and none of his business.

My thought, wrong though it may be: I have no duty to tell a LEO what I have in locked cases in the back of my vehicle or in the passenger cabin of my vehicle.

Link Posted: 6/26/2005 9:09:58 PM EDT
First of all, I don't understand the thinking that you want to intentionally deceive the officer. By doing so, you cause problems for yourself because you just introduced reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspension just gave the officer the opening to investigate. If you act like you are hiding things, or you sound like you are trying to hide the contents, you just caused yourself a hard time. In this day and age of homeland security, officers out there are going to more diligent about finding things like this.

True, he doesn't have the RIGHT to know what is in the cases, and he has to get a warrant in order to search the cases if you deny him the ability. If it is legal, say what it is. If he violates your rights and confiscates them when they are legal, you have the legal system to go through. Keep all documentation with you. Proof positive that the stuff is legal. Put it on the officer to make the call.
Link Posted: 6/26/2005 10:13:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dtom72:
First of all, I don't understand the thinking that you want to intentionally deceive the officer. By doing so, you cause problems for yourself because you just introduced reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspension just gave the officer the opening to investigate. If you act like you are hiding things, or you sound like you are trying to hide the contents, you just caused yourself a hard time. In this day and age of homeland security, officers out there are going to more diligent about finding things like this.

True, he doesn't have the RIGHT to know what is in the cases, and he has to get a warrant in order to search the cases if you deny him the ability. If it is legal, say what it is. If he violates your rights and confiscates them when they are legal, you have the legal system to go through. Keep all documentation with you. Proof positive that the stuff is legal. Put it on the officer to make the call.



+1. Don't give him an opening. Be honest and truthful.
Link Posted: 6/26/2005 10:30:01 PM EDT
I agree. Ignore what you hear about people's bad experiences with cops and treat them with respect. They'll work with you most of the time.

DPS is a whole other animal because they are no frills, no nonsense officers. They have to be. Most are by themselves and have little if any back up. They do not play around....the job isn't a circus.

I have been pulled over on the way to Dallas from Austin by DPS out of Ellis Co. I told him I had a gun in the car and he had me get out. He asked if I had a CHL or a peace officer and I said no. All state law says is it is legal to have a gun with you if you are traveling.....that's it. I told him where I was going and treated him with respect. I got a warning for speeding and a warning for not changing my DL address.

Back to your question. One of the biggest fears I have with your scenario is you just created a huge safety concern for you and the officer.

The best thing to do in my mind is:

Keep all paperwork concerning that particular weapon locked in the case with it. It is safe and you won't lose it. Additionally, when asked, you tell the officer, "Yes, sir, I do have weapons in those cases and they are legal. The paperwork is in the cases." If he asks to search them agree with a no problem sir. Here is the keys for the cases. If they are legal, you have no fear. That's the bottom line.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 4:46:19 AM EDT
There is no legal requirement to tell the officer what is in your locked cases.

Being deceptive, however, is an element of reasonable suspicion. Once people start lying to officers (and most officers have a pretty good understanding of Kinesic interviewing, even without formal training, by virtue of the fact that they would be dead or disabled if they didn't learn how to read people), things start changing rapidly.

Why would a decent, law-abiding person lie to an officer? Yes, there is no obligation, under many cirumstances, to tell an officer the truth, but deception is a warning sign, and if nothing else, may piss the officer off.

My suggestion is to be up front and honest. If I stop someone, and ask what is in all of the hard cases, and they tell me they are coming back from a machinegun shoot, then we are going to have a nice chat about Title II weapons and how I wished I got paid enough to afford more of them. If someone obviously lies to me or displays a nasty attitude, it is much harder for me to justify being nice.

If you DO find yourself in a situation where an uninformed officer is going to arrest you and/or confiscate your LEGAL weapons because he is not fully up to speed on the law (and many Texas Peace Officers are woefully ignorant about NFA laws, simply because they never deal with it), DON'T PANIC! Remain calm, polite and comply with all instructions. As soon as you get the opportunity, politefully do the following:
1) Explain the law;
2) Request that they have a supervisor respond to the scene;
3) If all else fails, request that they contact the nearest BATFE Field Office or Resident Agency and have the on-call Agent respond. BATFE Agents will generally be on the phone within about 5 minutes, 24/7, and a two minute conversation ("Does he have a piece of paperwork that says 'Form 4' on the bottom with a tax stamp on the back?") will generally sort things out.

The only NFA weapons I have ever dealt with on the enforcement end of things were a sawed-off shotgun someone found in a ditch, and another sawed-off shotgun we found in a meth lab. These aren't things that come up for street cops often deal with, and most are woefully ignorant of PC 46.05, Prohibited Weapons, and the fact that NFA-registered weapons are legal in Texas. Don't blame the officer; they spend most of their time dealing with traffic law, accident investigation, Family Violence, thefts, burglaries, hot checks, your neighbor's out-of-control kids, dope, DWI and a host of other offenses, petty and not-so-petty. NFA doesn't come up very often, and the average cop deals with it about as often as they do Usury laws or Illegal Dumping, and probably hasn't even thought about NFA since they passed the "Penal Code" test in the academy. In fact, I have dealt with Illegal Dumping calls MORE often as a Patrol grunt than I have NFA.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 5:15:23 AM EDT
We did have a guy that had his NFA stuff confiscated by a DPS officer and it took him a couple of days off work to get it back.

One of our Class III dealers had a discussion with a DPS officer who flat stated that he would arrest anyone with a suppressor, SBR, SBS or machinegun if he stpped them even if it was legal for them to possess.

That's a lot of trouble to go through.


Also, travelling, as we have recen'ty found out, is just a defense to a UCW charge. It doesn't stop the cop from arresting you or being charged with UCW.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 5:22:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dtom72:
True, he doesn't have the RIGHT to know what is in the cases, and he has to get a warrant in order to search the cases if you deny him the ability.


OK, is htere a reason that our intrepid ARFCOMer should give up this right?


If it is legal, say what it is.


Why is it any of his business? Remember, you may be dealing with John-In-Austin on this one.



If he violates your rights and confiscates them when they are legal, you have the legal system to go through.


Wrong, this takes lots of money and time. No lawyer is going to pursue this for free. Also, what are the damages? I think the goal is to prevent this from happeneing.



Keep all documentation with you. Proof positive that the stuff is legal. Put it on the officer to make the call.


Sorry, but I don't want some thug, just out of the ghetto and his gang, with his fresh TCLOS (or whatever that school for Texas LEOs is) card making that call on my ticket.

Link Posted: 6/27/2005 5:34:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
We did have a guy that had his NFA stuff confiscated by a DPS officer and it took him a couple of days off work to get it back.

One of our Class III dealers had a discussion with a DPS officer who flat stated that he would arrest anyone with a suppressor, SBR, SBS or machinegun if he stpped them even if it was legal for them to possess.

That's a lot of trouble to go through.


Also, travelling, as we have recen'ty found out, is just a defense to a UCW charge. It doesn't stop the cop from arresting you or being charged with UCW.



On #1, NFA registration is technically only a "defense to prosecution" for Prohibited Weapons charges. The Peace Officer MAY make an arrest, and the defense may be presented in court. The trooper technically has every legal authority to do exactly what he said. It would be STUPID and not very much in the interest of justice for him to do that, buthe can legally do that. I wouldn't, nor would I let any of my troops do it, but that is another matter entirely. Doubtless, those charges probably never make it past the intake attorney at the DA's Office, as it is inherently stupid to prosecute something that is legal.

As to #2, the Legislature has finally decided to define "Travelling" and on 1 September there will be a "presumption" that a person is "travelling" for the purposes of PC 46.02 if they are carrying a handgun in their car and not engaged in criminal activity other than a Class 'C' traffic offense, and not a member of a "Criminal Street Gang." A CHL is still a better way to legally carry.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 5:56:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2005 5:58:51 AM EDT by SC-Texas]

Originally Posted By natez:
On #1, NFA registration is technically only a "defense to prosecution" for Prohibited Weapons charges. The Peace Officer MAY make an arrest, and the defense may be presented in court. The trooper technically has every legal authority to do exactly what he said. It would be STUPID and not very much in the interest of justice for him to do that, buthe can legally do that. I wouldn't, nor would I let any of my troops do it, but that is another matter entirely. Doubtless, those charges probably never make it past the intake attorney at the DA's Office, as it is inherently stupid to prosecute something that is legal.



Hence my desire to simply not let the typical street officer know that I have them in the car. We have some guys in Houston that are straight outa' the ghetto, walkin' around flexin' their badges and hate guns in the hands of us mere subjects.

Good faith disclosure os sometimes met with bad faith arrest when dealing with some LEOs. Definitely in the minority, but when you run into one it is a pain in the ass and can get expensive.


As to #2, the Legislature has finally decided to define "Travelling" and on 1 September there will be a "presumption" that a person is "travelling" for the purposes of PC 46.02 if they are carrying a handgun in their car and not engaged in criminal activity other than a Class 'C' traffic offense, and not a member of a "Criminal Street Gang." A CHL is still a better way to legally carry.


Again, this is still a defense to prosecution, but the state has to overcome that presumption. Therefore, this law has merely shifted the burden to the state and off the defendant.



Link Posted: 6/27/2005 6:21:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2005 6:21:51 AM EDT by Frylock]
I don't think anyone actually answered the question. Am I under a legal requirement or duty to tell the LEO what is in my starlight cases?

Also, although deception is one element of probable cause for a search warrant, what are the other elements?

I'll also add a twist: What if I disclose that I have firearms in the locked cases and the LEO wants to see them so he can run the serial numbers. I would refuse to open them and tell him that the weapons and their serial numbers are frankly, none of his business. Albeit, I would do this in a nice way.

The "let me see your weapons and run the serial numbers" thing is something else that has happened recently here in Texas. I think it was up north around Denton.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 8:16:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Frylock:
I don't think anyone actually answered the question. Am I under a legal requirement or duty to tell the LEO what is in my starlight cases?

Also, although deception is one element of probable cause for a search warrant, what are the other elements?

I'll also add a twist: What if I disclose that I have firearms in the locked cases and the LEO wants to see them so he can run the serial numbers. I would refuse to open them and tell him that the weapons and their serial numbers are frankly, none of his business. Albeit, I would do this in a nice way.

The "let me see your weapons and run the serial numbers" thing is something else that has happened recently here in Texas. I think it was up north around Denton.



No, you are under no legal requirement to disclose the contents of your cases. The only time you are legally required to disclose the presence of a weapon is if you are a CHL holder , are armed and an officer is making contact with you.

Quite frankly, if I have you stopped for a traffic violation and feel you are trying to hide something I don't need to get a warrant to get inside your car. All I have to do is arrest you for the traffic offense and then I move into an inventory of the contents of your car prior to it being impounded.

Most people don't seem to realize that you can be arrested for every traffic offense in the Texas Transportation Code except for two (I'll let y'all do a little research and figure out for yourselves what those two are). Writing a ticket is a courtesy we extend to people but it is not mandatory.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 8:23:26 AM EDT
Even if you arrest the person for a traffic stop, you still need to get a search warrant to open locked cases, assuming I remember the law correctly.

Arresting someone is a lot of trouble and that is sure to casue the arresting officer some problems with complaints if the arrest is simply for a traffic stop. That's a lot of trouble for sticking your nose into something that you don't have a right to stick your nose into isn't it?
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 8:32:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2005 8:44:37 AM EDT by OLNACL]

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
Even if you arrest the person for a traffic stop, you still need to get a search warrant to open locked cases, assuming I remember the law correctly.

Arresting someone is a lot of trouble and that is sure to casue the arresting officer some problems with complaints if the arrest is simply for a traffic stop. That's a lot of trouble for sticking your nose into something that you don't have a right to stick your nose into isn't it?



Not for an inventory. An inventory is done to protect both the PD and the defendant and is considered different from a search by the courts.. Locked boxes are searched (if we can find the keys, they are not forced open) because we don't need somone coming back and saying "I had one million dollars in that box and now it's gone" after thier car has been towed to the pound.

Arresting someone is very easy. All you need is a violation of the law....which the person has provided, hence the traffic stop.

You have your opinion on where I need to stick my nose and I have my opinion on where it needs to be. So far my opinion has done me quite well in my career so I will stick with it. Thanks for your input though.

Y'all wanted an answer from a police officer and you got one. It's not my problem if you don't like the answer. If you don't want to get into this situation, don't get pulled over.

Pretty good explanation of Inventory Searches: www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/search2.html
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 8:47:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OLNACL:
Not for an inventory. An inventory is done to protect both the PD and the defendant and is considered different from a search by the courts.. Locked boxes are searched (if we can find the keys, they are not forced open) because we don't need somone coming back and saying "I had one million dollars in that box and now it's gone" after thier car has been towed to the pound.



So you open locked boxes without probable cause? I thought case law in Texas stated that you cannot use instantur arrests to get around a refused search? Am I wrong?


Arresting someone is very easy. All you need is a violation of the law....which the person has provided, hence the traffic stop.

I didn't say is wasn't. I just said that frivolous arrests can be a pain for everyone involved.


You have your opinion on where I need to stick my nose and I have my opinion on where it needs to be. So far my opinion has done me quite well in my career so I will stick with it. Thanks for your input though.

and I hope it continues to serve you well and keep you safe.


Y'all wanted an answer from a police officer and you got one. It's not my problem if you don't like the answer. If you don't want to get into this situation, don't get pulled over.


Not a cop bashing, merely a discussion.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 8:54:53 AM EDT
Got to Love Lexis: Inventory-On Point for the after arrest poriton of this discussion


Rothenberg v. State, NO. 01-03-00364-CR , COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIRST DISTRICT, HOUSTON , 2004 Tex. App.



The Fourth Amendment allowed police to open closed and locked containers as part of the inventory of an automobile, in accordance with standard police procedures, as long as the police did not act in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation. Consequently, under Tex. Const. art. I, § 9, a police officer could open a closed and locked container as part of an inventory search of an automobile as long as the inventory was conducted in good faith pursuant to standard police procedure.



Background

One evening, appellant was driving a borrowed car, in which his wife, Julianne Rothenberg, was a passenger. Katy Police Officer Shiller pulled appellant over for his car's having an expired registration sticker. Officer Hughes stopped at the scene soon after Officer Shiller had arrived. When the officers ran appellant's driver's license number, they discovered an outstanding arrest warrant, arrested appellant, handcuffed him, and placed him in a police car.

When the officers told appellant that the car could be turned over to Julianne or towed, appellant requested the former. However, Julianne [*3] advised the officers that she had been having seizures that day, was weak, and was not feeling well. She "just didn't know if [she] was in the best condition to be [driving] at the time," and she told the officers that it was probably not a good idea for her to drive. Accordingly, the officers were unable to release the car to Julianne, and the car was instead impounded.

After Julianne had also been placed in the patrol car, the officers began an inventory of the impounded car. During the inventory, the officers found a large bag of lithium batteries; two bank bags containing white, powdery residue; and a bottle of ephedrine inside the car. n1 Additionally, the officers found in the car some beakers and two books--one showing where to obtain chemicals and chemical supplies, and the other outlining the chemical composition of various drugs, including methamphetamine.

The officers also found a lockbox in the car's hatchback. [*4] At the suppression hearing, Julianne testified that appellant kept jewelry, money, and tax records for his jewelry business in the lockbox. Appellant told the officers that the lockbox contained cash, jewelry, checks, bank statements, paperwork, and tools for his jewelry business. Appellant testified that the lockbox was important to him and that he would want it taken care of.

The Katy Police Department had a policy, which the officers followed with appellant's car, for inventorying impounded vehicles. That policy required officers to inventory "all items inside of" the vehicle. Specifically, departmental policy required that "personal items that are worth something" and "anything of value" be inventoried. Officer Shiller explained that "if all items aren't documented, then obviously the person whose vehicle was towed can claim that there was anything in the vehicle . . . . If there is a suitcase or something . . . that we are going to leave with the car, we are pretty much responsible for whatever is in the vehicle. If we don't look and see what's in it, then he could say there is a million dollars in there or anything else he wanted to and we would be responsible for that." Officer [*5] Shiller also agreed that anything, including something that might be capable of harming officers, could be in a closed container. n2 Both officers testified that they would not be allowed to deposit the lockbox with the departmental property room without first having determined the box's contents.

The officers had already taken appellant's keys, along with the other property that appellant had on his person, when they arrested appellant. When the officers asked him if his keys included a key to the lockbox, appellant responded affirmatively, but he refused to consent to a search of the box. Nevertheless, the officers opened the lockbox with the key. Inside, the officers found several hundred small plastic baggies; a narcotics test kit containing vials, one of which contained a strong acid that could be used to make methamphetamine; scales; a flat, metal spoon; a bottle of PH test strips; funnels; brushes; [*6] and small baggies containing methamphetamine.


Link Posted: 6/27/2005 8:56:08 AM EDT
I still haven't found anything on Lexis about consent searchs that apply to locked boxes in a car prior to an arrest.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 8:57:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Frylock:
I don't think anyone actually answered the question. Am I under a legal requirement or duty to tell the LEO what is in my starlight cases?

Also, although deception is one element of probable cause for a search warrant, what are the other elements?

I'll also add a twist: What if I disclose that I have firearms in the locked cases and the LEO wants to see them so he can run the serial numbers. I would refuse to open them and tell him that the weapons and their serial numbers are frankly, none of his business. Albeit, I would do this in a nice way.

The "let me see your weapons and run the serial numbers" thing is something else that has happened recently here in Texas. I think it was up north around Denton.



In that case I'd have to be arrested. There is no way I would voluntarily submit to that kind
of thing without being arrested first.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 8:58:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OLNACL:

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
Even if you arrest the person for a traffic stop, you still need to get a search warrant to open locked cases, assuming I remember the law correctly.

Arresting someone is a lot of trouble and that is sure to casue the arresting officer some problems with complaints if the arrest is simply for a traffic stop. That's a lot of trouble for sticking your nose into something that you don't have a right to stick your nose into isn't it?



Not for an inventory. An inventory is done to protect both the PD and the defendant and is considered different from a search by the courts.. Locked boxes are searched (if we can find the keys, they are not forced open) because we don't need somone coming back and saying "I had one million dollars in that box and now it's gone" after thier car has been towed to the pound.

Arresting someone is very easy. All you need is a violation of the law....which the person has provided, hence the traffic stop.

You have your opinion on where I need to stick my nose and I have my opinion on where it needs to be. So far my opinion has done me quite well in my career so I will stick with it. Thanks for your input though.

Y'all wanted an answer from a police officer and you got one. It's not my problem if you don't like the answer. If you don't want to get into this situation, don't get pulled over.

Pretty good explanation of Inventory Searches: www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/search2.html



If you are telling us that in your career you regularly arrest people for the sole purpose of doing an inventory search on their car then I will tell you to expect a short career in law enforcement and a long time paying back the civil damages that you will eventually get slapped in the face with.

Link Posted: 6/27/2005 8:59:49 AM EDT
One thing is sure, I'll be activating the combination lock on my minivault under my drivers seat and keeping all keys to any locked cases that I have in the minivault.

They would have to pry it open and I damn sure would not give them the combination.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 9:00:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OLNACL:

No, you are under no legal requirement to disclose the contents of your cases. The only time you are legally required to disclose the presence of a weapon is if you are a CHL holder , are armed and an officer is making contact with you.



What about lying to the officer though? Is that not a crime?

Ignore CHL or anything illegal. You have legal gun in trunk of car. If cop asks if you have any guns in car (you do), and you say no, is that crime?
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 9:01:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:

Originally Posted By OLNACL:
Not for an inventory. An inventory is done to protect both the PD and the defendant and is considered different from a search by the courts.. Locked boxes are searched (if we can find the keys, they are not forced open) because we don't need somone coming back and saying "I had one million dollars in that box and now it's gone" after thier car has been towed to the pound.



So you open locked boxes without probable cause? I thought case law in Texas stated that you cannot use instantur arrests to get around a refused search? Am I wrong?

If you can find the case law I would be very interested in reading it and see if it applies to inventories of vehicles. You and I may be debating apples and oranges here. Our policy is that we will make every effort to look into all cases/boxes/whatnot after arresting someone during an inventory of the car for the protection of the PD and the owner/driver of the vehicle. I have been to court on quite a few arrests from traffic violations where contraband was found during the inventory of the vehicle (including a locked lock box) and have yet to lose one.

Arresting someone is very easy. All you need is a violation of the law....which the person has provided, hence the traffic stop.


I didn't say is wasn't. I just said that frivolous arrests can be a pain for everyone involved.

I hope no one here has the impression that this kind of arrest occurs often. It doesn't and is based on many more factors then just a refusal to let us look into your car. The majority of arrests I have done in my careeer have been on people that our narcotics section has seen entering and leaving a dope house that was under surviellance by them. But being arrested for a traffic violation is a possiblity to keep in mind.


You have your opinion on where I need to stick my nose and I have my opinion on where it needs to be. So far my opinion has done me quite well in my career so I will stick with it. Thanks for your input though.

and I hope it continues to serve you well and keep you safe.


Y'all wanted an answer from a police officer and you got one. It's not my problem if you don't like the answer. If you don't want to get into this situation, don't get pulled over.


Not a cop bashing, merely a discussion.



No problem. I am sure that you have seen it though where an officer is asked a question, gives and honest reply and that leads into bashing of LE
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 9:06:44 AM EDT

If you are telling us that in your career you regularly arrest people for the sole purpose of doing an inventory search on their car then I will tell you to expect a short career in law enforcement and a long time paying back the civil damages that you will eventually get slapped in the face with.



That is not what I am saying...try reading what is written not interpreting it through your own biases. I said that being arrested for a traffic violation can and has occurred.

Thank you for your concern for my career. Been working the streets for 13 years now and have never been sued. 13 years...is that a short career?
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 9:07:54 AM EDT
OLNACL,

See about, I found a recent case that was right on point about opening locked boxes for inventory searches.

My question: Can you force a locked box open for an inventory search?

Link Posted: 6/27/2005 9:09:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OLNACL:
If you are telling us that in your career you regularly arrest people for the sole purpose of doing an inventory search on their car then I will tell you to expect a short career in law enforcement and a long time paying back the civil damages that you will eventually get slapped in the face with.



That is not what I am saying...try reading what is written not interpreting it through your own biases. I said that being arrested for a traffic violation can and has occurred.

Thank you for your concern for my career. Been working the streets for 13 years now and have never been sued. 13 years...is that a short career?



I took your comment this way. I doubt that many officers would go to the trouble of arresting people for every traffic stop.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 9:09:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By OLNACL:

No, you are under no legal requirement to disclose the contents of your cases. The only time you are legally required to disclose the presence of a weapon is if you are a CHL holder , are armed and an officer is making contact with you.



What about lying to the officer though? Is that not a crime?

Ignore CHL or anything illegal. You have legal gun in trunk of car. If cop asks if you have any guns in car (you do), and you say no, is that crime?



Lying about your name and DOB is illegal. Feel free to lie about anything else. However, if you get caught in a lie (and we are pretty good at catching people in lies) then expect bad things to happen to you.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 9:13:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:

Originally Posted By OLNACL:
If you are telling us that in your career you regularly arrest people for the sole purpose of doing an inventory search on their car then I will tell you to expect a short career in law enforcement and a long time paying back the civil damages that you will eventually get slapped in the face with.



That is not what I am saying...try reading what is written not interpreting it through your own biases. I said that being arrested for a traffic violation can and has occurred.

Thank you for your concern for my career. Been working the streets for 13 years now and have never been sued. 13 years...is that a short career?



I took your comment this way. I doubt that many officers would go to the trouble of arresting people for every traffic stop.




My apologies then. I only meant to convey that being arrested for the traffic offiense is something that can occur. It is not something that occurrs frequently. I am sure that if it was being abused our fine, pro criminal legislators would have removed the right of LE to arrest for traffic offenses. Much like the ability to arrest people for being "suspicious in a suspicous place" was taken away many years ago.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 9:20:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OLNACL:

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:

Originally Posted By OLNACL:
If you are telling us that in your career you regularly arrest people for the sole purpose of doing an inventory search on their car then I will tell you to expect a short career in law enforcement and a long time paying back the civil damages that you will eventually get slapped in the face with.



That is not what I am saying...try reading what is written not interpreting it through your own biases. I said that being arrested for a traffic violation can and has occurred.

Thank you for your concern for my career. Been working the streets for 13 years now and have never been sued. 13 years...is that a short career?



I took your comment this way. I doubt that many officers would go to the trouble of arresting people for every traffic stop.




My apologies then. I only meant to convey that being arrested for the traffic offiense is something that can occur. It is not something that occurrs frequently. I am sure that if it was being abused our fine, pro criminal legislators would have removed the right of LE to arrest for traffic offenses. Much like the ability to arrest people for being "suspicious in a suspicous place" was taken away many years ago.



Yes, apologies if that is not what you intended, but it sounded like that was SOP for you and/or your department.

If that's not the case then certainly, apologies.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 9:24:33 AM EDT
I can see this going downhill fast.

What an officer can do, as opposed to what he will do are usually two different things. Can you be arrested for a traffic offense (other than speeding/open container), yes. Will you be arrested? I guess that depends on the individual officer that you are having a visit with.

I am still trying to figure out why you would blatantly lie about what is in the vehicle, especially if it is perfectly legal. If you are afraid of your property being seized by an uninformed officer, you have every right to insist on the supervisor/BATFE option. If it is discovered that you are not being truthful, you have just given the officer reasonable suspicion to investigate further. Why dig yourself into a deeper hole?

I can only speak for myself, but a little cooperation will go a long way. Don't bring attitude to the table.

As to your original question: No, you are under no legal obligation to disclose the contents of your vehicle/cases.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 9:25:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
OLNACL,

See about, I found a recent case that was right on point about opening locked boxes for inventory searches.

My question: Can you force a locked box open for an inventory search?




That's a good question. I am pretty sure that my PD would not allow that. I have been called to several traffic stops that involved that problem (locked boxes and no keys). I ran my K9 on those particular boxes and so far he has alerted to each one (we then got a warrant based on the K9 alert).....and there has been dope or pipes with residue in each one. Due the K9 alert and warrant we were able to force those boxes open.

I would imagine that if there was no way to get into the box (no K9 alert or other info that would allow us to get a warrant and then force the box open) we would interview the driver/owner on video (all of our cars have video in them now) and if he said he did not know what was in the box or gave us a detailed accounting of the contents either way we would be covered civily and then we would place the box in our property room for safekeeping.

However in 13 years I have never encountered that problelm. Someone always has a key or we have been able to get a warrant. So the above answer is speculation on how I would handle that situation and not how a supervisor might approach it.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 9:37:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By OLNACL:

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:

Originally Posted By OLNACL:
If you are telling us that in your career you regularly arrest people for the sole purpose of doing an inventory search on their car then I will tell you to expect a short career in law enforcement and a long time paying back the civil damages that you will eventually get slapped in the face with.



That is not what I am saying...try reading what is written not interpreting it through your own biases. I said that being arrested for a traffic violation can and has occurred.

Thank you for your concern for my career. Been working the streets for 13 years now and have never been sued. 13 years...is that a short career?



I took your comment this way. I doubt that many officers would go to the trouble of arresting people for every traffic stop.




My apologies then. I only meant to convey that being arrested for the traffic offiense is something that can occur. It is not something that occurrs frequently. I am sure that if it was being abused our fine, pro criminal legislators would have removed the right of LE to arrest for traffic offenses. Much like the ability to arrest people for being "suspicious in a suspicous place" was taken away many years ago.



Yes, apologies if that is not what you intended, but it sounded like that was SOP for you and/or your department.

If that's not the case then certainly, apologies.



Not SOP. Just another tool in the tool box to help me do my job.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 10:09:46 AM EDT
SC, I'm going to overlook the attack on my integrity. I find it interesting that people's first response is to lie like a rug.

You are under no obligation to tell me what's in the cases. (Not that I'd ask in the first place, I couldn't give a rat's ass whether you have a suppressor or not. I do not enforce Federal law)

However, things are going to get really nasty if I catch you in a lie. You see, criminals lie. Honest gun owners don't. Guess what you just identified yourself as? Your warning just became a cite/custody arrest. (yes, I arrest traffic violations on occasion when I suspect other criminal activity)

As for the inventory, I don't need PC to conduct an inventory. All I need is the arrest you just provided yourself. Now, locked containers generally fall under dept policy, not law, and are going to be handled differently. My dept policy is that high value items are taken into the property room apart from the vehicle. (That goes to the impound lot.) Sealed containers are not allowed into property, but that's the evidence tech's problem, not mine.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 10:53:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2005 11:04:21 AM EDT by SC-Texas]

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
SC, I'm going to overlook the attack on my integrity.


John, based on our previous correspondence, in which you appear to be of the mind that citizens should not be self reliant regarding taking care of themselves and should wait on the police to assist them, I figure you might be one of the LEOs that deep down would be just as happy if the entire populace was disarmed.

I could be wrong. but since you have expressed a desire that I do not visit your jurisdiction (in one of your IMs to me), and since a fellow ARFCOMer was arrested while travelling in your jurisdiction, makes me wonder how far your general attitude extends in your jurisdiction and it makes me wonder why I would ever tell a cop that I had an unloaded rifle in a locked case in my truck. So, it looks like I will never have the pleasure of meeting you and getting to know what you really think about these issues which is something that I would normally do with anyone that I thought I had a disagreement with over constitutional issues and happened to be in their area.


I find it interesting that people's first response is to lie like a rug.

Some people. However, I don't see where its any of your business what I have in a locked case in my car. However, lying to a cop is generally a bad thing if you get caught doing it. Its like a client lying to me when I represent them. Bad ju ju and I'll generally fire them and keep the part of their retainer that I am entitled to.


You are under no obligation to tell me what's in the cases. (Not that I'd ask in the first place, I couldn't give a rat's ass whether you have a suppressor or not. I do not enforce Federal law)


Uh, John, aren't Class III weapons governed by state law also? IIRC, class III weapons are illegal under state law and having them properly registered is a DEFENSE. Kind of like travelling and UCW laws.


However, things are going to get really nasty if I catch you in a lie.


It generally happens that way. However, you didn't answer the question of what happens if the guy simply says that the locked cases have riufles and refuses to open them?


You see, criminals lie. Honest gun owners don't.

Sometimes. Sometimes honest gun owners simply don't need a LEO sticking their nose into something that isn't any of their business. I guess in your world, only guilty people refuse to consent to searches.


Guess what you just identified yourself as? Your warning just became a cite/custody arrest. (yes, I arrest traffic violations on occasion when I suspect other criminal activity)


Well, my warning was probaly a citation anyway.


As for the inventory, I don't need PC to conduct an inventory. All I need is the arrest you just provided yourself. Now, locked containers generally fall under dept policy, not law, and are going to be handled differently. My dept policy is that high value items are taken into the property room apart from the vehicle. (That goes to the impound lot.) Sealed containers are not allowed into property, but that's the evidence tech's problem, not mine.


See the above case. I didn't find any cases that address opening locked containers or boxes when the keys are not present absent some extrinsic circumstances such as a dog alerting on them. Of course, if the dog was alerting on GSR and the LEO testified that the dog alerted on drugs, then that would probably be sufficent PC to force open a locked case.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 11:02:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2005 11:08:38 AM EDT by SC-Texas]

Originally Posted By dep4532:
I can see this going downhill fast.


Hopefully not


What an officer can do, as opposed to what he will do are usually two different things. Can you be arrested for a traffic offense (other than speeding/open container), yes. Will you be arrested? I guess that depends on the individual officer that you are having a visit with.


True, LEOs have a lot of discretion


I am still trying to figure out why you would blatantly lie about what is in the vehicle, especially if it is perfectly legal.

That's a good point. Goes back to lying is bad. However, I have been stopped and had LEOs go on a fishing expedition in questioning me. That is the exception. I generally get warnings or if I get a ticket, I am on my way without undue delay.


If you are afraid of your property being seized by an uninformed officer, you have every right to insist on the supervisor/BATFE option.


Is a supervisor available if you are on I-45 beteewn Houston and Dallas and a DPS officer is confiscating your Class III stuff.



If it is discovered that you are not being truthful, you have just given the officer reasonable suspicion to investigate further. Why dig yourself into a deeper hole?


True. Of course, to discover that you were not being truthful would require the officer to open the locked starlight cases inthe back of you vehicle wouldn't it?




I can only speak for myself, but a little cooperation will go a long way. Don't bring attitude to the table.


Yep, it usually does.



As to your original question: No, you are under no legal obligation to disclose the contents of your vehicle/cases.

Its obviously all in the nuances
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 11:05:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
You see, criminals lie. Honest gun owners don't.



And as a result of not lying, honest gun owners get their guns confiscated, thrown in jail, miss work and saddled with un-reimbursed legal fees. Makes me re-think if honesty is really the best policy.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 11:11:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2005 11:12:12 AM EDT by SC-Texas]

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
You see, criminals lie. Honest gun owners don't.



And as a result of not lying, honest gun owners get their guns confiscated, thrown in jail, miss work and saddled with un-reimbursed legal fees. Makes me re-think if honesty is really the best policy.



Good Point: Look what happened to the guy whose machineguns were confiscated by the uninformed DPS trooper. Look at the attitutde of the DPS officer who was in "The Gun Store" in Austin and told that owner that he didn't care whether it was legal or not- he was arresting anyone he caught with a machinegun.


I feel like I am playing LEO lottery everytime I am stopped-haven't been stopped in over a year thank you very much. Especially if I happened to have my machineguns in the car.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 12:19:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
SC, I'm going to overlook the attack on my integrity.


John, based on our previous correspondence, in which you appear to be of the mind that citizens should not be self reliant regarding taking care of themselves and should wait on the police to assist them, I figure you might be one of the LEOs that deep down would be just as happy if the entire populace was disarmed.

I haven't a clue how you came up with this. Perhaps you have me crossed with someone else. If I wanted the "Populace disarmed" I wouldn't be teaching CHL classes for free.

I could be wrong. but since you have expressed a desire that I do not visit your jurisdiction (in one of your IMs to me), and since a fellow ARFCOMer was arrested while travelling in your jurisdiction, makes me wonder how far your general attitude extends in your jurisdiction and it makes me wonder why I would ever tell a cop that I had an unloaded rifle in a locked case in my truck. So, it looks like I will never have the pleasure of meeting you and getting to know what you really think about these issues which is something that I would normally do with anyone that I thought I had a disagreement with over constitutional issues and happened to be in their area.

which arfcommer was this? And is there a link? As for the first part, when you profess the desire to perform criminal actions (As you specifically stated in the thread in question) I certainly do NOT want you in my jurisdiction.


I find it interesting that people's first response is to lie like a rug.

Some people. However, I don't see where its any of your business what I have in a locked case in my car. However, lying to a cop is generally a bad thing if you get caught doing it. Its like a client lying to me when I represent them. Bad ju ju and I'll generally fire them and keep the part of their retainer that I am entitled to.


You are under no obligation to tell me what's in the cases. (Not that I'd ask in the first place, I couldn't give a rat's ass whether you have a suppressor or not. I do not enforce Federal law)


Uh, John, aren't Class III weapons governed by state law also? IIRC, class III weapons are illegal under state law and having them properly registered is a DEFENSE. Kind of like travelling and UCW laws. I suggest you do some research. You're going to be surprised. I'm amazed that as an attorney and gun owner, you don't already know this forwards and backwards.


However, things are going to get really nasty if I catch you in a lie.


It generally happens that way. However, you didn't answer the question of what happens if the guy simply says that the locked cases have rifles and refuses to open them?

Nothing really. Why would I ask him to open them on a traffic stop? Unless of course it's something a lot more serious than a traffic stop.


You see, criminals lie. Honest gun owners don't.

Sometimes. Sometimes honest gun owners simply don't need a LEO sticking their nose into something that isn't any of their business. I guess in your world, only guilty people refuse to consent to searches.

Refuse the search to your heart's content. No skin off my nose. (I'd like to point out, the number of consent searches I've asked for in the past 5 years is certainly less than 6. None refused. You guys seem to think consent searches are the only way to do things.) However, only criminals lie. Which certainly warrants the added scrutiny. I find it interesting that you find a client's lying unacceptable, but defend it when it's to an officer..


Guess what you just identified yourself as? Your warning just became a cite/custody arrest. (yes, I arrest traffic violations on occasion when I suspect other criminal activity)


Well, my warning was probaly a citation anyway. How would you know that? I base my citations on the attitudes and actions of the person stopped. YOU choose the level of response so to speak.


As for the inventory, I don't need PC to conduct an inventory. All I need is the arrest you just provided yourself. Now, locked containers generally fall under dept policy, not law, and are going to be handled differently. My dept policy is that high value items are taken into the property room apart from the vehicle. (That goes to the impound lot.) Sealed containers are not allowed into property, but that's the evidence tech's problem, not mine.


See the above case. I didn't find any cases that address opening locked containers or boxes when the keys are not present absent some extrinsic circumstances such as a dog alerting on them. Of course, if the dog was alerting on GSR and the LEO testified that the dog alerted on drugs, then that would probably be sufficent PC to force open a locked case.



Don't bring a dog into it, that's a whole different field of search and seizure, and people are confused enough already. Courts have upheld inventory searches on numerous occasions. If locks etc are forced it is going to be dependant on dept policy.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 12:26:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:


Look at the attitutde of the DPS officer who was in "The Gun Store" in Austin and told that owner that he didn't care whether it was legal or not- he was arresting anyone he caught with a machinegun.




This sounds like an internet line of bull. Since I live within a 5 minute walk of the Gun Store, I'll stop in and talk to them about it. BTW: It's in Cedar Park, not Austin. I've called out assholes in the shop before attributing bullshit stories such as this to MY dept.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 12:45:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
I still haven't found anything on Lexis about consent searchs that apply to locked boxes in a car prior to an arrest.



Look for "search incident to an arrest"

R.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 1:07:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
which arfcommer was this? And is there a link?



The most recent attack on honest law-abiding gun owners has been a top thread for several weeks now:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=8&t=202166


Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
I suggest you do some research. You're going to be surprised. I'm amazed that as an attorney and gun owner, you don't already know this forwards and backwards.





§ 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures,
transports, repairs, or sells:
(1) an explosive weapon;
(2) a machine gun;
(3) a short-barrel firearm;
(4) a firearm silencer;
(5) a switchblade knife;
(6) knuckles;
(7) armor-piercing ammunition;
(8) a chemical dispensing device; or
(9) a zip gun.
(b) ...
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor's possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the
National Firearms Act, as amended.



What are we missing from our reading of the law?
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 1:20:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2005 1:26:23 PM EDT by The_Emu]

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
You see, criminals lie. Honest gun owners don't.



And as a result of not lying, honest gun owners get their guns confiscated, thrown in jail, miss work and saddled with un-reimbursed legal fees. Makes me re-think if honesty is really the best policy.



Yup. in the the future when dealing with the cops my responses will go like this:

Here is my ID.

I have nothing illegal on my person or in my vehicle.

Am i under arrest?

Am i free to go?

I need to talk to my attorny.

I have no faith in law enforcement anymore.
"To protect and serve" yeah right.

Ben, The Emu


One other thing, when the office put a authorization to seach form in front of me and i refused he was pissed. My electric back window is broken and they had to crawl all through by truck which was covered in red texas panhandle dirt. Ha-ha.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 3:03:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
What about lying to the officer though? Is that not a crime?



It is.


Ignore CHL or anything illegal. You have legal gun in trunk of car. If cop asks if you have any guns in car (you do), and you say no, is that crime?


Lying is a crime. Not answering is not a crime.

If you are pulled over the only thing that you legally have to provide is your drivers liscense, insurance, and registration.

You dont have to engage in chit chat with any police officer, you dont have to answer any of thier questions.

Personally I have no problem answering some of thier questions, but if I dont feel like answering I would just say "sir or maam, I dont think that is any of your business and I'm not going to answer that question."

If someone ever asked if I had drugs or guns in the car I would answer "I have no illegal drugs or illegal weapons in my vehicle." Notice that is not an answer to the question you were asked, that could be a statement of fact. Hopefully the officer in question wouldnt notice and he would carry on unawares, but if he presses the issue just state that its none of his business.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 3:28:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:


Look at the attitutde of the DPS officer who was in "The Gun Store" in Austin and told that owner that he didn't care whether it was legal or not- he was arresting anyone he caught with a machinegun.




This sounds like an internet line of bull. Since I live within a 5 minute walk of the Gun Store, I'll stop in and talk to them about it. BTW: It's in Cedar Park, not Austin. I've called out assholes in the shop before attributing bullshit stories such as this to MY dept.



Not internet bullshit, but 2nd hand from a reliable source. I will confirm it personally when I go to Austin this week to prove up a divorce and stop in at the gun store.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 3:39:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2005 7:51:54 PM EDT by SC-Texas]

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
I haven't a clue how you came up with this. Perhaps you have me crossed with someone else. If I wanted the "Populace disarmed" I wouldn't be teaching CHL classes for free.


Well good for you. My opinion of your internet persona and you is always open to amendment and change for the better.


which arfcommer was this? And is there a link? As for the first part, when you profess the desire to perform criminal actions (As you specifically stated in the thread in question) I certainly do NOT want you in my jurisdiction.

Nope, never prefessed a desire to break the law in your jurisdiction, the thread was discussing whose responsibility a citizen's safety was and you had the opinion that citizens should rely on the government first. Nope, no link and I didn't bother saving the IMs. It was a year or so ago.


I suggest you do some research. You're going to be surprised. I'm amazed that as an attorney and gun owner, you don't already know this forwards and backwards.


I guess you read the above post so I don't need to further educate you on this. Federal laws are often mirrored by state laws. Your statement, however, is a prime reason to not let people like you know what people like me have in their locked cases.


Nothing really. Why would I ask him to open them on a traffic stop? Unless of course it's something a lot more serious than a traffic stop.

That's the crux of the issue. You and most of the good guys wouldn't, however, some are and they are hassling good guys about legal weapons.


Refuse the search to your heart's content. No skin off my nose. (I'd like to point out, the number of consent searches I've asked for in the past 5 years is certainly less than 6. None refused. You guys seem to think consent searches are the only way to do things.) However, only criminals lie. Which certainly warrants the added scrutiny. I find it interesting that you find a client's lying unacceptable, but defend it when it's to an officer..

Again, some of the less than reputable LEOs use consent searches as fishing expeditions. Hell, some use inventory searches as fishing expeditions and arrest merely to search.


How would you know that? I base my citations on the attitudes and actions of the person stopped. YOU choose the level of response so to speak.

I expect to get a citation for breaking the law. Its a pleasant surprise if I don't. I act accordingly.



Don't bring a dog into it, that's a whole different field of search and seizure, and people are confused enough already. Courts have upheld inventory searches on numerous occasions. If locks etc are forced it is going to be dependant on dept policy.

Fair enough, bringing the dog into it changes the fact pattern.


Also, It is my understanding that it is a misdemenor to lie to a police officer.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 3:49:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2005 3:52:11 PM EDT by SC-Texas]
So, do we have a summary here?

1. No, cops cannot generally open locked boxes without your permission or probable cause for a simple traffic stop.

2. Its against the law to lie to the Police officer, but you can simply refuse to answer
a. No cite for this yet

3. If you are carrying with a CHL, you must dislcose your carry handgun
a. Unanswered question- do you have to disclose all weapons in your vehicle or just the weapon at hand?

4. If you disclose that you have weapons you don;t have to open the locked cases to allow the LEO to check the serial numbers

4. If you are arrested, the LEOs can open locked cases pursuant to inventory search of vehicle
a. If keys are on your key ring- they can open locked cases
b. Unanswered- can they force locked packages open absent exigent circumstances


Link Posted: 6/27/2005 4:37:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
So, do we have a summary here?

1. No, cops cannot generally open locked boxes without your permission or probable cause for a simple traffic stop.

2. Its against the law to lie to the Police officer, but you can simply refuse to answer
a. No cite for this yet
Here is a cite that pertains to this point:
§ 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence
address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully
arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a
false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a
peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the
peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal
offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an
offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time
of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic
Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section
106.07.


As you can see the only thing that this statute addresses is name, dob and address. Think about it, if there was a statute that applied to people lying about the contents of their cars don't you think we (officers) would be using it? I have yet to have a doper say "Yes officer there is _____ in my car and this is where it is.". Instead the statement usually is "No, officer I don't got no dope. You can look but you're wasting your time." Then when I find dope (more often then not) I charge that person with the dope. As much as I hate dopers if there was a charge to put on them for lying about the presence of dope in their car, believe me I would put it on them. So, unfortunately except for certain types of information, it is not against the law to lie to law enforcement when we are asking you questions. However, lying (and most people are not very good at it....lawyers being an exception to the rule hat

3. If you are carrying with a CHL, you must dislcose your carry handgun
a. Unanswered question- do you have to disclose all weapons in your vehicle or just the weapon at hand?

Here is the cite for that: Goverment Code 411.205
§ 411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; PENALTY. (a) If a
license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license
holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that
the license holder display identification, the license holder shall
display both the license holder's driver's license or
identification certificate issued by the department and the license
holder's handgun license. A person who fails or refuses to display
the license and identification as required by this subsection is
subject to suspension of the person's license as provided by
Section 411.187.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person fails or
refuses to display the license and identification as required by
Subsection (a) after previously having had the person's license
suspended for a violation of that subsection. An offense under this
subsection is a Class B misdemeanor.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1,
1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 9.17(a), eff.
Sept. 1, 1999.


Notice, it specifically states HANDGUN on that statute so, according to the law, that answer is "No". Now, how each judge in each couty interprets that statute is a whole 'nother matter.


4. If you disclose that you have weapons you don;t have to open the locked cases to allow the LEO to check the serial numbers

4. If you are arrested, the LEOs can open locked cases pursuant to inventory search of vehicle
a. If keys are on your key ring- they can open locked cases
b. Unanswered- can they force locked packages open absent exigent circumstances



Link Posted: 6/27/2005 5:25:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OLNACL:
Here is a cite that pertains to this point:
§ 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.

3. If you are carrying with a CHL, you must dislcose your carry handgun
a. Unanswered question- do you have to disclose all weapons in your vehicle or just the weapon at hand?

Here is the cite for that: Goverment Code 411.205
§ 411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; Notice, it specifically states HANDGUN on that statute so, according to the law, that answer is "No".
Now, how each judge in each couty interprets that statute is a whole 'nother matter.



Thanks, that helps clear it up.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 6:01:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:

Originally Posted By OLNACL:
Here is a cite that pertains to this point:
§ 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.

3. If you are carrying with a CHL, you must dislcose your carry handgun
a. Unanswered question- do you have to disclose all weapons in your vehicle or just the weapon at hand?

Here is the cite for that: Goverment Code 411.205
§ 411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; Notice, it specifically states HANDGUN on that statute so, according to the law, that answer is "No".
Now, how each judge in each couty interprets that statute is a whole 'nother matter.



Thanks, that helps clear it up.



Glad to be of service.
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 6:04:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 7:42:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Emu:

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
You see, criminals lie. Honest gun owners don't.



And as a result of not lying, honest gun owners get their guns confiscated, thrown in jail, miss work and saddled with un-reimbursed legal fees. Makes me re-think if honesty is really the best policy.



Yup. in the the future when dealing with the cops my responses will go like this:

Here is my ID.

I have nothing illegal on my person or in my vehicle.

Am i under arrest?

Am i free to go?

I need to talk to my attorny.

I have no faith in law enforcement anymore.
"To protect and serve" yeah right.

Ben, The Emu



Ya know, its a damned shame now that every encounter you have from here on out with LEO's is going to be tainted by some dork who stepped on his dick.

I need to memorize your answers... they seem to be really good. Would a LEO on here please comment on their merit?
Link Posted: 6/27/2005 8:10:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
What about lying to the officer though? Is that not a crime?



It is.
It's only illegal to lie when giving required info like name, dob, etc.


Ignore CHL or anything illegal. You have legal gun in trunk of car. If cop asks if you have any guns in car (you do), and you say no, is that crime?


Lying is a crime. Not answering is not a crime.

If you are pulled over the only thing that you legally have to provide is your drivers liscense, insurance, and registration.
The registration is on the windshield...this isn't kalifornia

You dont have to engage in chit chat with any police officer, you dont have to answer any of thier questions.

Personally I have no problem answering some of thier questions, but if I dont feel like answering I would just say "sir or maam, I dont think that is any of your business and I'm not going to answer that question."

If someone ever asked if I had drugs or guns in the car I would answer "I have no illegal drugs or illegal weapons in my vehicle." Notice that is not an answer to the question you were asked, that could be a statement of fact. Hopefully the officer in question wouldnt notice and he would carry on unawares, but if he presses the issue just state that its none of his business.

Link Posted: 6/27/2005 8:12:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
SC, I'm going to overlook the attack on my integrity. I find it interesting that people's first response is to lie like a rug.

You are under no obligation to tell me what's in the cases. (Not that I'd ask in the first place, I couldn't give a rat's ass whether you have a suppressor or not. I do not enforce Federal law)

However, things are going to get really nasty if I catch you in a lie. You see, criminals lie. Honest gun owners don't. Honest people do lie. Honest people get scared and do stupid shit at times. Guess what you just identified yourself as? Your warning just became a cite/custody arrest. (yes, I arrest traffic violations on occasion when I suspect other criminal activity)

As for the inventory, I don't need PC to conduct an inventory. All I need is the arrest you just provided yourself. Now, locked containers generally fall under dept policy, not law, and are going to be handled differently. My dept policy is that high value items are taken into the property room apart from the vehicle. (That goes to the impound lot.) Sealed containers are not allowed into property, but that's the evidence tech's problem, not mine.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top