TexasCHLforum.com

SORENSON v FERRIE, decided in U.S. District Court in 1998.

In 1995, Ms. Sorenson was leaving a stable in her car at 3 a.m. The police stopped her on suspicion of vandalism. She said he had been tending her horse and opened the trunk of her car to show them her grooming tools.

Ms. Sorenson had a pistol in her trunk. She was a security guard and was on her way to work, but not in uniform.

The police arrested her for unlawfully carrying a weapon, under PC 46.02 as it was at that time.

Prosecutors dismissed the charge several months later.

Ms. Sorenson then sued the officers for false arrest. The appeals court held that the officers were immune from civil prosecution. The court said that the standard for prosecution of violations of 46.02 was vague and that officers had the benefit of the doubt when making an arrest.


Fortunately, with the recent rewriting of 46.02, this kind of thing won't happen again.

Very interesting references to "on or about one's person" and other legal technicalities.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:SORENSON v FERRIE, decided in U.S. District Court in 1998.

In 1995, Ms. Sorenson was leaving a stable in her car at 3 a.m. The police stopped her on suspicion of vandalism. She said he had been tending her horse and opened the trunk of her car to show them her grooming tools.

Ms. Sorenson had a pistol in her trunk. She was a security guard and was on her way to work, but not in uniform.

The police arrested her for unlawfully carrying a weapon, under PC 46.02 as it was at that time.

Prosecutors dismissed the charge several months later.

Ms. Sorenson then sued the officers for false arrest. The appeals court held that the officers were immune from civil prosecution. The court said that the standard for prosecution of violations of 46.02 was vague and that officers had the benefit of the doubt when making an arrest.


Fortunately, with the recent rewriting of 46.02, this kind of thing won't happen again.

Very interesting references to "on or about one's person" and other legal technicalities.

- Jim

Interesting case. I see either a) she ticked the cops of in some way 2) under-trained cops.

It has been clear since at least I was a cop that UCW did not include the trunk. The officers atrorneys must have done a good job convincing the civil judge that they were number 2.

I don't recall "on or about (one's) person" being any different in 1995 than it is today. Secured in a vehicle's trunk has never, to my knowledge, been found to be "on or about" one's person.

It's a shame the immunity was upheld. A clearly improper arrest is outside the scope of employment, just the same as using blatantly excessive force, and should invalidate immunity.

You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

Now, new and improved, "without recourse!"

4t5 wrote:You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.... "without recourse!"

Yep. And this sorry business probably cost the plaintiff upwards of 20 grand.

- Jim

Well, the case has some interesting points on what is truly meant by "on or about the person" and does nothing to clear up that area. If the officers could introduce one case in Dallas County that was accepted for a weapon in the trunk, then they have the ambiguity necessary for the immunity on the arrest. I found it interesting that the plaintiff must prove the clear violation of the law, but as a general rule, the plaintiff must prove their case first, so it makes sense.

As to the actual reason for arrest, it is clear to me what happened and why. She was stopped for a valid reason and opened her trunk voluntarily. That is mistake number one. Then she explained why she was carrying and tried to call the club to verify. This is probably the right ting to do given the first mistake. No one at the club answered and she was told to call her supervisor. Instead she called her husband. That is mistake number 2. Then her husband tried to argue the law with the officers. STRIKE 3. NEVER argue law with a cop on the street. You cannot win, even if you are right. Anyone want to be that the police would not have arrested her if she had contacted her security supervisor to verify her story?

In effect, she was arrested for the old charge of making the cop mad. She was 100% right in what she did prior to the stop, and no one should ever be arrested for being stupid this way, but we all know it happens.

This should reinforce to everyone those 3 basic rules:

1. Never consent to a search. Make them get a warrant or have probable cause.

2. Never talk to police without a lawyer, especially when you are in a gray area of the law.

3. Never ever argue with a police officer, especially about who knows the law better. As in this case, sometimes you even lose in court.

Steve, thanks for elaborating these points.

- Jim