• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A texan ccl holder arrested for a minor traffic violation

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin


Mr Gonzalez was stopped for a traffic violation which escalated when he confessed that he is a CCL holder and is carrying. Cop called backup and guns were drawn and Mr. Gonzalez was cuffed for traffic violation. It seems that either policeman 'feared' for his life or they don't want Texans carrying or it just a lone incident of a policeman himself who does not believe in 2A. Maybe there is more to the story.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...r-informed-officer-of-concealed-carry-permit/
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,948
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
He told KPRC 2, "Asked questions. By asking questions, you're automatically labeled as argumentative. And having a weapon on you automatically makes you dangerous."
I know from experience that asking questions you're automatically labeled as argumentative and will be arrested.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Replying "I noticed you didn't stop at that traffic signal" or "I observed you exceeding the speed limit" takes just as little time as saying "I'll tell you when I'm good and gawd-damned ready." Reserving the answer only enables the officer to exhibit more control over the motorist, which some seem to enjoy displaying.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
"The officer's actions were within policy," said Lt. William Henry of the Rosenberg Police Department.
Then...
Lt. Henry said, "We don't target people with handgun licenses. We don't target gun owners in general. Any responsible gun owner...we're not out targeting people like that. As far as what the officer perceived, the officer perceived a threat."
What?

Liar liar pants on fire! Well, we don't "target" people with handgun licenses, or gun owners in general...now.
 

Griz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
315
Location
, ,
To me it seemed the officer got testy due to being asked the reason for the stop.

it's been my experience that given due time, they will tell you why you were stopped. usually in the form of, "the reason I pulled you over..."

you can then politely refute that statement, but probably not to any positive effect.
 

CrossFire

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
407
Location
Irving, Texas, USA
My experience has been the officer asking "Do you know why I pulled you over?" as an attempt to get you to confess to wrong doing up front.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,948
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Officer - Do you know why I pulled you over?

Driver - Well officer, if you don't know then that makes two of us......

Driver - Well officer, your lost and you need someone to help you find your way home.

Driver - Well officer, you wanted to warn me of some danger ahead.

Driver - Well officer, you wanted to compliment me on my superior driving abilities.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
Officer - Do you know why I pulled you over?

Driver - Well officer, if you don't know then that makes two of us......

Driver - Well officer, your lost and you need someone to help you find your way home.

Driver - Well officer, you wanted to warn me of some danger ahead.

Driver - Well officer, you wanted to compliment me on my superior driving abilities.

Officer: Just making sure you didn't have a gun.
Driver: I do have a gun.
Officer: (thinking to himself) Dam the2A.(out loud) Let me see those hands! Keep them in the air. Get out, you are under arrest!
Driver: I have a CCL
Officer: I don't care this is a big city and it is a war zone! We don't know who is good and who is bad! I'll confiscate your gun. You'll have to go to court to get it out.
Driver: But officer..
Officer: I feared for my life... I don't care if you have a CCL.. You go to jail and let the system figure you out. I got my end taken care of.
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I'm trying to remember, I think in Texas there are exactly two traffic violations for which an officer has to give you the option of signing a promise to appear. For all others, as far as I know, they always have the option of arrest instead of cite. There may be case law that restricts them more than statute, though. Someone has eluded that something like this was the case, but I couldn't even begin to validate or cite any supporting evidence.

I think the two listed in statute for which an officer must offer the option to sign a promise to appear are speeding and open container violations.

If I am correct about this, it is just one more thing to add to the long, long list of things that need to be fixed in Texas statutes. I mean, do we really think an officer should be able to, at their "discretion," arrest a person for something like their blinker bulb went out and they didn't know?

Edit: Regarding not answering questions, or asking your own questions, I guess your mileage may vary. I've "refused" (making an effort to be quite polite about it) to answer questions once during a traffic stop, and received just a warning. The officer suggested that it took him off guard a bit, but he didn't consider it rude or hostile.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Looks like all the publicity spurred the department to make a statement: "In light of the recent media publicity regarding the traffic arrest of an armed CHL holder, we felt compelled to make a statement. The Rosenberg Police Department supports our 2nd Amendment rights, and all CHL holders. Please do not allow an isolated incident or the actions of one Officer to tarnish the image of the entire Agency. The arresting Officer is no longer employed with our Department. We stand with our Community."
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,948
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Looks like all the publicity spurred the department to make a statement: "In light of the recent media publicity regarding the traffic arrest of an armed CHL holder, we felt compelled to make a statement. The Rosenberg Police Department supports our 2nd Amendment rights, and all CHL holders. Please do not allow an isolated incident or the actions of one Officer to tarnish the image of the entire Agency. The arresting Officer is no longer employed with our Department. We stand with our Community."
If that is not an admittance of the officers wrong doing then I don't know what is.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I'm trying to remember, I think in Texas there are exactly two traffic violations for which an officer has to give you the option of signing a promise to appear. For all others, as far as I know, they always have the option of arrest instead of cite. There may be case law that restricts them more than statute, though. Someone has eluded that something like this was the case, but I couldn't even begin to validate or cite any supporting evidence.

I think the two listed in statute for which an officer must offer the option to sign a promise to appear are speeding and open container violations.

You are correct on all of the above. And even for those two, the officer only has to ask one time for a signature; if refused (and "refused" includes anything other than immediately signing), even those two offenses are subject to custodial arrest.

A bit of Texas law:
- Every traffic stop constitutes an arrest; at the end of the stop, the driver is either released without charges, charged and signs a personal recognizance bond in the form of a Promise To Appear (the ticket), or taken into custody.
- Every violation of the Texas Transportation Code is a crime, of Class C misdemeanor or greater.
 

BigStack

New member
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
30
Location
Texas
If that is not an admittance of the officers wrong doing then I don't know what is.
I think.... it is how you slice the pie.

Legally his actions were within the law and policies.
BUT his actions were not what the agency wants as a public image.

Thus they politic a statement that admits no legal fault yet conveys the problem has been dealt with.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Does TX have language in any particular statute or any number of statutes such as this:
RSMo 571.121. 1. ... Failure to comply with this subsection shall not be a criminal offense but the concealed carry permit or endorsement holder may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed thirty-five dollars.
It is not often in MO statutes that a criminal offense is "converted" into a mere infraction and thus the "violator" is not (can not be) subject to arrest.

But, there is then this:
RSMo 544.216 ... may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any ordinance or law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, over which such officer has jurisdiction. ...
Vexing and why cops are permitted to be held harmless for any number abuses that they may subject the citizenry to.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,948
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
RSMo 544.216 ... may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any ordinance or law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, over which such officer has jurisdiction. ...

But, there is then this: Vexing and why cops are permitted to be held harmless for any number abuses that they may subject the citizenry to.
Not in Ohio. Only under very specific statutes can an arrest without a warrant happen. If an officer did not see the crime, other than a felony, an arrest without a warrant is unlawful. If, however, an affidavit by a citizen who claims a crime happened is secured then an arrest my happen.
 

Turbod'1

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
181
Location
Henderson, NV now Texas. I move a lot.
New to the Texas forum but not "new": It's my understanding that one can have a firearm in their vehicle, without permit, as long as it's concealed [please correct me if I'm wrong]: must one disclose, as part of the permit process, that they have a CHL when pulled over?
 
Top