TexasCHLforum.com

I was told of a man (some time in the last year or so) at the Kemah boardwalk being arrested after a woman noticed a handgun in his belt holster. She called the police, they quickly arrived and the man was arrested on the spot, handcuffed and hauled off in a patrol car.

This happened as a result of an unintentional exposure. He was supposedly a CHL holder. I don't the outcome of this story or if in fact it really happened. This story was told to me by an acquaintance.

True story or not, how does one prove "unintentional display" or whatever the precise legal term? I know I've had a gust of wind suddenly reveal my handgun in a parking lot and one other time when it actually fell out of my defective holster. (surprise!)

If someone were to call the police in an unintentional revealing of my handgun (and assuming I was carrying where it's legal to do so) what are my chances in Texas of the law being understanding or can I expect to be hauled in...?

Thanks!

Abraham wrote:I was told of a man (some time in the last year or so) at the Kemah boardwalk being arrested after a woman noticed a handgun in his belt holster. She called the police, they quickly arrived and the man was arrested on the spot, handcuffed and hauled off in a patrol car.

This happened as a result of an unintentional exposure. He was supposedly a CHL holder. I don't the outcome of this story or if in fact it really happened. This story was told to me by an acquaintance.

True story or not, how does one prove "unintentional display" or whatever the precise legal term? I know I've had a gust of wind suddenly reveal my handgun in a parking lot and one other time when it actually fell out of my defective holster. (surprise!)

If someone were to call the police in an unintentional revealing of my handgun (and assuming I was carrying where it's legal to do so) what are my chances in Texas of the law being understanding or can I expect to be hauled in...?

Thanks!

Thankfully, an element of the offense is "intentionally" failing to conceal. Therefore, the state has to prove you intentionally failed to conceal it; you don't have to prove it was unintentional. This is the reverse of a defense, or an affirmative defense.

It would be a very good idea to say something like, "I'm sorry, I had no idea my gun (or holster) was showing. I thought I had it concealed." You could still be arrested, but your "excited utterance" would indicate the required element of intentional conduct will be hard if not impossible to prove. I think an arrest is unlikely if you made a statement like the one above.

Chas.

Abraham wrote:Are LEO's well informed regarding unintentional display?

It is my personal opinion that LEO's are well informed about the things they encounter frequently.

They tend to be not as well informed on things they encounter occasionally or seldom.

I would not expect any LEO to be well informed about CHL matters unless the officer also has a CHL.

I agree in part with Mike. As a general rule, you can not expect LEO's to be familair with things they do not deal with on a regular basis, with things that are not hammered into them in training. Thus, I can expect an LEO to know how to handle an accident scene or a burglary. I would not expect him to know the CHL laws very well.

But, I would expect most LEO's to understand about an unintentional display. They are familiar with this from their own carrying. Many departments (San Antonio I know is one example) require officers to keep their weapons concealed when off duty. Since no one can ever prevent all of the possible unintentional displays no matter how careful they are, the officer has probably had something similiar happend to him.

I agree with Charles also that the best answer is to tell him you did not know you were displaying. If the weapon is not out and uncovered when he gets there (or is just partially uncovered, like your shirt got stuck behind it), the officer will normally just remind you and let you go. Unless your luck is as bad as mine and you get the rare (in Texas) officer who wants to make an example out of you because he doesn't like CHLs.

If it were to come to an officer wanting to arrest me for an unintentional display, I'd civilly request a supervisor on scene. A supervisor will have more ability to check the TPC and make a better determination as to whether they have cause to arrest you. At least that's my understanding. I was witness to an APD officer calling in for clarification on the TPC code when determining whether he was going to arrest a suspicious person I reported outside my workplace, so if you have an officer who is reasonable about handling it, you may be able to avoid the arrest altogether.

At least that's my understanding. I seem to remember a thread here about a year ago where someone stated that they are required to bring a supervisor in if one is requested. I don't know police procedure very well, so I may be mistaken. Any LEOs or folks familiar with such things are more than welcome to correct me or provide clarification on this. I've looked this up and found similar opinions from other folks on the internet, but haven't found an immediate reference as to where in any code it is laid out.

Thanks everyone for your input.

NcongruNt wrote:I seem to remember a thread here about a year ago where someone stated that they are required to bring a supervisor in if one is requested. I don't know police procedure very well, so I may be mistaken. Any LEOs or folks familiar with such things are more than welcome to correct me or provide clarification on this. I've looked this up and found similar opinions from other folks on the internet, but haven't found an immediate reference as to where in any code it is laid out.

I am curious about this also. It may be in some department's procedures or policies, but I doubt that it's in any code.

There is no requirement for an officer to get a supervisor in any law I am aware of. it is a very common requirement in most departments.

Of course, the problem in some agencies is that there may not be a supervisor on duty (Luling PD was small enough that this was scheduled for about 6 hours daily). And in my case, we have agents where the supervisor may be assigned 200 miles away.

But, it almost never hurts to politely ask for a supervisor. If you have been cooperative so far and explain to the officer why you want one (question of the law), you should get one. I had to put almost never hurts because there are officers who will get madder if you request a supervisor. These officers will think you are arguing with them. You will probably be able to recognize them when it occurs and before you ask. So, be careful how and which officers you ask about getting a supervisor. It usually will be beneficial or, at the worst, not detrimental, but it can end up being very bad for your situation.

I could see Kemah or Seabrook PD arresting someone on the boardwalk for unintentional display. Kemah cops are known locally for being over-bearing and otherwise unpleasant to deal with. I've witnessed them on several occasions humiliating boardwalk patrons.

bridge wrote:I could see Kemah or Seabrook PD arresting someone on the boardwalk for unintentional display. Kemah cops are known locally for being over-bearing and otherwise unpleasant to deal with. I've witnessed them on several occasions humiliating boardwalk patrons.

A few years ago there was an online campaign against the Kemah Police Department. Something along the lines of the Kemah Clowns. They were selling Kemah Cop coffee mugs. I actually bought one. Eventually the cops stopped giving out so many tickets. Rumer has it Fertita put pressure on them to knock it off, the reputation was having an adverse effect on the boardwalk bussiness. The web site went away also. I think they have lightened up some on the way they were treating people since then too.

Kemah was using a lot of unpaid reserve officers, who would use the opportunity to get and maintain their peace officer certification. Lots of these guys were academy graduates, and were unhirable for various reasons. Many had very little experience. From what I hear things are supposed to have improved over the last couple of years. The incident about the unintentionally displaying the weapon was in the 90s I believe. I know it wasn't recently.

bridge wrote:Kemah cops are known locally for being over-bearing and otherwise unpleasant to deal with. I've witnessed them on several occasions humiliating boardwalk patrons.

Well, that's certainly good for a tourism-based local economy.