Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Arrested for Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon in Dallas 06'

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas, ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I came to this site to get information on how long i would have to wait to get a CHLÂ*after getting a 'UCW' in 2006. After reading different members post; it made curious about my own case. I had no prior's or have had anything else since that charge. I'm also not a member of a gang of any such. Was the search illegal or not? Read below and give some input:

    "I was making a left turn at an intersection. The officers were coming from the street I was headed on, and was making a right turn; headed the towards the direction i was leaving. As the officers made the rightÂ*turn, they looked directly at me and then went in made a U-turn. (Note: I was drivng a 1992 Toyota Camry; Registration and License Plate stickers were in standard). They came in pulled behind me as the light changed for me to go. I proceeded my turn and headed towards my destination which was the next street. I made my turn with the officers still behind me and as i drove a little further; the officers turn his lights on. I pulled over and waited for the officers to approach my door. One officer got out and instead of coming to my door; came to the passenger door. The first thing he asked was about the registered owner of the car; which was my sons mother. He said she had warrants and ask for my information; He said if everything checks out with me, I would be free to go. He went back to the squad car and check my information. He came back to the passenger side and let me know that i was clear and free to leave. As he walked back towards the squad car; he was looking in my back seat and spotted a camouflage case sticking out a little bit under the back seat. He then asked what was in the case. I said "nothing" and that's when he asked me to step out of the vehicle, and to sit on the curb. By this time his partner approach me and starting talking.Â*The main officer went inside my vehicle and grab the camouflage gunÂ*case. He opened it and found the gun with bullets in the case. The gun was an old antique "smith & weston" revolver six shooter. Hadn't been shot in a decade or two "

    Â*

  2. #2
    Regular Member CrossFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Irving, Texas, USA
    Posts
    408

    Post imported post

    Sounds like an illegal search to me, however IANAL. Get with an attorney and tell him your story. In answer to your first question, if you were charged with a misdemeanor you will have to wait 5 years before you can apply for a CHL.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    Not only that, it IS legal to carry a gun (long guns always HAVE been and handguns are NOW since September of 2007) in the car in Texas -- with or without a CHL and loadedor unloaded-- as long as4 points are met:

    1. It is concealed.

    2. You are not a gang member.

    3. Are not engaged in criminal activity.

    ...and (4) otherwise legally allowed toown a firearm.

    And back in 2006 -- before the law changes since then--if the gun was in a location that required "a material change in body position" (not in arm's reach) to get a hold of it, then you were NOT considered "carrying." [IF I have this correct]

    You don't say whether it was a long-gun or handgun...it makes a difference. Not NOW, but back it 2006 it probably did.

    But back then -- and keep in mind Iam not a lawyer -- if you were going to or from a gun range/shooting activity (re: handguns only...long guns were exempt) or, "travelling," then you were in no violation, either. The cops would have to prove you were NOT going to any gun range or activity (HTH do they do that?) or show you wereNOT travelling...but back then, even the travelling part was not a clear-cut issue and interpreted differently by judges. I guess itwould have to be shown that you habitutally carry a handgun in your car at all times...but again, HTH are the cops going to prove that?

    And acase under the seat you say was sticking out just a little (so they could not see the whole thing) -- regardless of it's color -- could contain your lunch for gosh sakes...so what? How does it say "there's something illegal" (or not) inside?

    So it sounds like the cops were on thin ice if not just plain out wrong.

    -- John D.

    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    CrossFire wrote:
    Sounds like an illegal search to me, however IANAL. Get with an attorney and tell him your story. In answer to your first question, if you were charged with a misdemeanor you will have to wait 5 years before you can apply for a CHL.
    I may have to look up the requirements again, but 'charged' with ANY misdemeanor? say, I got charged for driving without a license then later had the charge dropped? I'd have to wait 5 years still?

  5. #5
    Regular Member CrossFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Irving, Texas, USA
    Posts
    408

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    CrossFire wrote:
    Sounds like an illegal search to me, however IANAL. Get with an attorney and tell him your story. In answer to your first question, if you were charged with a misdemeanor you will have to wait 5 years before you can apply for a CHL.
    I may have to look up the requirements again, but 'charged' with ANY misdemeanor? say, I got charged for driving without a license then later had the charge dropped? I'd have to wait 5 years still?
    O.K. I meant convictedof a misdemeaner.




















  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas, ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    It was an antique "Smith & Weston" six shooter revolver that hadn't been shot in an decade

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    Illegal search. At the end of the stop he should have just let you go, period. The only problem is that you are beyond the 2 year SOL for a 1983 lawusit.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas, ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Dang....should have thought about it sooner....other than the lawsuit is there anything else i can probably do......i will still have to wait the full 5 yrs. huh

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas, ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Also I wasn't found guilty; I was given deferred

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas, ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Also I wasn't found guilty; I was given deferred

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    Yes, it looks like you'll have to wait. "Deferred adjudication" is a problem getting a TX CHL:



    http://www.texasdefenselaw.com/recen...igibility.html

    "Friday, January 18, 2008

    Concealed Handgun License Eligibility and Deferred Adjudication

    Another warning about deferred adjudication—it can jeopardize your eligibility to obtain a concealed handgun license in Texas.

    Accepting deferred adjudication in certain situations will make you ineligible to obtain a concealed handgun license. In fact, DPS considers deferred adjudication a conviction when evaluating a CHL application.

    First, for felonies: a person cannot apply for a CHL if he has a felony deferred adjudication for offenses against a person, including murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, indecency with a child, aggravated assault and robbery.

    For all other felonies, like property or drug crimes, the deferred adjudication must have started ten years before the date one applies for a CHL.

    For misdemeanors, one cannot have a deferred adjudication for a Class A, Class B, or for a Class C disorderly conduct for five years before applying for a CHL.

    DPS also prohibits applicants from having two or substance related offenses in the ten year period before asking for a license. So if a person has a DWI conviction and a deferred adjudication for possession of a controlled substance in the last ten years, he cannot apply for a CHL."

    --Fred Dahr, criminal defense lawyer, Houston, Texas.



    ...I am assuming these points are still current law.

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Magnolia, Texas, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    Believe it or not, in Texas, he had probable cause, then you lied to him. Bad move.

  13. #13
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    There's no law against lieing.

    There's a lot missing here, or it's total BS...... Something made the LEO believe it was a gun and if so, in 2006 there's a good chance he was breaking the law. I say good chance because the change in 2007 eliminated the ambiguity which could make having a handgun in your car a violation.

    But why toss a handgun, in a case or not, in the seat of a car at a time when it was not clearly legal to do so (like since 9/102007)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Magnolia, Texas, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    Legal or not, if a cop sees a case in my truck and asks if there is a weapon in it, I sure won't say no if there is. Now that's just dumb. You don't make a cop mad, he can make it hard on you.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    I am a cop. That is an illegal search. He cannot use the pat down of the vehicle excuse anymore since he was done with his business and was cutting you lose. The gun wasn't in plain view. You didn't admit to having one or authorized him to look in your car. If you got convicted on Class A UCW, you have to wait 10 yrs to be eligible for CCW.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Count wrote:
    I am a cop. That is an illegal search. He cannot use the pat down of the vehicle excuse anymore since he was done with his business and was cutting you lose. The gun wasn't in plain view. You didn't admit to having one or authorized him to look in your car. If you got convicted on Class A UCW, you have to wait 10 yrs to be eligible for CCW.
    But, seeing part of a camoflage case in plain view would begin a new cycle where an LEO may address questions to anyone, no? So, I'm going to guess that if the search was illegal, it wasn't because the LEO was done with the traffic stop.

    Lets assume for the moment that the traffic stop was over and the LEO was beginning a new inquiry. Would the corner of a camoflage case (lets assume it is a gun case) sticking out give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion of an illegally carried gun? I'm thinking it might.

    Then when the driver answered there was "nothing" in the case, does this not add to the suspicion.

    I guess the real question is whether the driver's denial and whether the corner of the case looked like a gun case were enough for probable cause for a search for carrying an illegal gun. As compared to searching the car for officer safety.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Magnolia, Texas, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    It sounds like a win - lose situation to me.

    I would think the LEO stepped over the line on this one, depending on the attitude of the person or persons involved.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Count wrote:
    I am a cop. That is an illegal search. He cannot use the pat down of the vehicle excuse anymore since he was done with his business and was cutting you lose. The gun wasn't in plain view. You didn't admit to having one or authorized him to look in your car. If you got convicted on Class A UCW, you have to wait 10 yrs to be eligible for CCW.
    But, seeing part of a camoflage case in plain view would begin a new cycle where an LEO may address questions to anyone, no? So, I'm going to guess that if the search was illegal, it wasn't because the LEO was done with the traffic stop.

    Lets assume for the moment that the traffic stop was over and the LEO was beginning a new inquiry. Would the corner of a camoflage case (lets assume it is a gun case) sticking out give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion of an illegally carried gun? I'm thinking it might.

    Then when the driver answered there was "nothing" in the case, does this not add to the suspicion.

    I guess the real question is whether the driver's denial and whether the corner of the case looked like a gun case were enough for probable cause for a search for carrying an illegal gun. As compared to searching the car for officer safety.
    The simple presence of a "gun case" does not meet the requirements of the Horton test for a plain view search. This is further compounded in thissituation because the case wasreportedly only partially visible,thus the officer could not even say that it wasgun case.The fact that it was camouflage does not matter either, as they make everything in camo patter these days as a fashion statement.Since a case can be used for any purpose, the simple presence of a case, no matter what shape it is (i.e. the common tapered shape of a gun case, square or whatever), is not enough to justifyan unauthorized search based on the plain sight doctrine.

    For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prongHorton test must apply, which requires the officer to be:

    1. lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
    2. the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and
    3. the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”
    The term"incriminating character of the object", as used in part three of the test, refers to the illegal object (i.e. gun, drugs, etc) and the term "immediately apparent" refers to being clearly discernible that theillegal object is present. The third part of this test did not apply here because the incriminating character of the object (in this case the gun) was not "immediately apparent". In order to say for sure that a gun was present the officer had to perform the search, which made the search illegal under the Horton test. The presence of a case does not mean a handgun is present, thus thepresence of a weapon or any other illegal item is not immediately apparent. In order to meet the "immediately apparent" requirement, the officer has to actually identify the presence of the illegal object by sight (actually see an identifying character of the object, such as a part or outline of a gun), touch (such as feeling it duringa legal pat down), sound (such as hearing an occupant refer to the illegal object in the vehicle) or smell (such as smelling the odor of burning marijuana in the vehicle or the use of a drug dog to detect the presence of drugs), without having to enter, move, uncoveror otherwise further access the object.

    Furthermore,the presence ofa cased handgunthat is out of reach of the driver is not a violation of Texas law either.

    As for lying to the officer, while not a good idea for numerous reasons, it is not an offense in itself. Lying is only an offense if it was done under oath, such as in court or on a sworn statement.

    All of this is irrelevant anyway, because this case (if true, and I have mydoubts)has already been ruled on by the court and the 30 days allowed to file an appeal in Texas has long since past, so legal search or not, guilty of the charge or not,it is a done deal.

    Doc


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Magnolia, Texas, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    In the future, in Texas, if I'm pulled over by a LEO and I'm not carrying a weapon, which I do have a CHL, for instance, I just left Academy with a new case and it's behind the seat of my truck. Can an officer search this case?

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    DocNTexas wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Count wrote:
    SNIP I am a cop...
    SNIP I guess the real question is whether the driver's denial and whether the corner of the case looked like a gun case were enough for probable cause for a search for carrying an illegal gun.
    SNIP The simple presence of a "gun case" does not meet the requirements of the Horton test for a plain view search. This is further compounded in thissituation because the case wasreportedly only partially visible,thus the officer could not even say that it wasgun case.The fact that it was camouflage does not matter either, as they make everything in camo patter these days as a fashion statement.Since a case can be used for any purpose, the simple presence of a case, no matter what shape it is (i.e. the common tapered shape of a gun case, square or whatever), is not enough to justifyan unauthorized search based on the plain sight doctrine.

    For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prongHorton test must apply, which requires the officer to be:

    1. lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
    2. the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and
    3. the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”
    The term"incriminating character of the object", as used in part three of the test, refers to the illegal object (i.e. gun, drugs, etc) and the term "immediately apparent" refers to being clearly discernible that theillegal object is present. The third part of this test did not apply here because the incriminating character of the object (in this case the gun) was not "immediately apparent". In order to say for sure that a gun was present the officer had to perform the search, which made the search illegal under the Horton test. The presence of a case does not mean a handgun is present, thus thepresence of a weapon or any other illegal item is not immediately apparent. In order to meet the "immediately apparent" requirement, the officer has to actually identify the presence of the illegal object by sight (actually see an identifying character of the object, such as a part or outline of a gun), touch (such as feeling it duringa legal pat down), sound (such as hearing an occupant refer to the illegal object in the vehicle) or smell (such as smelling the odor of burning marijuana in the vehicle or the use of a drug dog to detect the presence of drugs), without having to enter, move, uncoveror otherwise further access the object.

    Furthermore,the presence ofa cased handgunthat is out of reach of the driver is not a violation of Texas law either.

    As for lying to the officer, while not a good idea for numerous reasons, it is not an offense in itself. Lying is only an offense if it was done under oath, such as in court or on a sworn statement.

    All of this is irrelevant anyway, because this case (if true, and I have mydoubts)has already been ruled on by the court and the 30 days allowed to file an appeal in Texas has long since past, so legal search or not, guilty of the charge or not,it is a done deal.

    Doc
    Thanks for the info on the "Horton" test, Doc. I'll look it up.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    No, the camouflage case doesn't give you the probable cause required for search. An admission will, seeing the actual revolver or part of it in plain view it will, and the driver doing so-called furtive movement will allow a pat down of the vehicle within his reach, just the way the Terry frisk of a person is done. The answer is: the presence of the cammo case doesn't justify any of the search. The pat down is not a search it is for the officer's safety. Once he announced he is done with his business, short of the driver starting furtive movements, that would make the officer think he could be wanting to reach for something that could harm the officer, there's nomore reason for pat down, and the search is a triple NO. Where the officer can still mess you up is that in Texas except for speeding and open container, you can be arrested for any other traffic violation. Should the officer decide to arrest you, he will perform an inventory of the vehilce per CCP before towing it to the impound. If the gun is discovered during the inventory (which is not a search....hehe) you are still in trouble (I am talking about the old law when the incident happened....now it is legal to have your concealed gun anywhere inside your vehicle). My question is: what is the exact date the incident happened, because Terry Keel's first attempt to legalizing carrying in cars may have been already in effect, but our local commies decided to ignore it, that's why I had to go down and testify in the law enforcement committe to make the UCW exempt your vehicle....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •