Texas Law Shield - Gun Laws

[IHaveAMustang]

I bought it the day we took Venix's class. Like mentioned above, its a couple outings to a fast foot restaurant that will potentially keep you out of jail and from going bankrupt.

Plus I put it on my AMEX which I don't use, so it keeps the points trickling in and the credit active (longest CC on my account, which helps credit score)

[GhostTX]

Has anybody spoken with "your" lawyer on the list (lawyer of geographic area)? How they view themselves as apart of the protection?

[Darren M]

My two main take-aways were: Don't talk to cops after a shooting and mitigate potential for out-of-control legal costs.

I saw a video from USCC the other day stating this, sort of. The only thing you should say is that you'd like to invoke your 5th amendment rights and that you'd like to have a lawyer present during questioning. Furthermore, make it VERY clear. That way there is no question. My thoughts go to my spouse/kids if they were there. God forbid! Should they also plead the 5th? Or request a lawyer be present as witnesses? Or, are they covered under my requests? I've heard a wife can't be forced to testify on the stand against her spouse but what about at the scene?

[Baron Von Crowder]

the quote my CHL instructor recommended was " I would like to cooperate fully with you, but I would like to consult my attorney first"

He said that they arent supposed to question you any longer.

[Labora]

Some useful info worth a mention for anyone considering it is if you travel out of state you can call them and ask about any other state gun laws and they will happily fill you in. Just another way to cover your ass in regards to magazine bans, chl reciprocity, legal transport, etc.

[GeorgeG.]

the quote my CHL instructor recommended was " I would like to cooperate fully with you, but I would like to consult my attorney first"

He said that they arent supposed to question you any longer.

sounds like the class I took...was this in Grand Prairie?

And this should be a perma-sticky!

[Baron Von Crowder]

mine was in Grapevine, but it might have been the same dude?

[Chili]

I saw a video from USCC the other day stating this, sort of. The only thing you should say is that you'd like to invoke your 5th amendment rights and that you'd like to have a lawyer present during questioning. Furthermore, make it VERY clear. That way there is no question. My thoughts go to my spouse/kids if they were there. God forbid! Should they also plead the 5th? Or request a lawyer be present as witnesses? Or, are they covered under my requests? I've heard a wife can't be forced to testify on the stand against her spouse but what about at the scene?

the quote my CHL instructor recommended was " I would like to cooperate fully with you, but I would like to consult my attorney first"

He said that they arent supposed to question you any longer.

They way they recommended addressing it in my class was to say no more than "I feared for my life" and "I'm really shaken up and my family attorney has told me to consult with him before giving any statements" or something to that extent. They encouraged stating "family attorney" because you don't come off like you were prepared for dealing with a shooting case.

Some useful info worth a mention for anyone considering it is if you travel out of state you can call them and ask about any other state gun laws and they will happily fill you in. Just another way to cover your ass in regards to magazine bans, chl reciprocity, legal transport, etc.

We do have the multi-state coverage (it's an extra couple bucks a month) but honestly, before I travel I usually just check handgunlaw.us just to make sure I'm clear on the reciprocity and local requirements.

[Chili]

Latest email (minus the marketing stuff):

Can A Police Officer Search My Cell Phone Without A Warrant?

Fourth Amendment jurisprudence may be the most heavily litigated amendment to our Constitution. As a general rule, the police must have a warrant prior to conducting a search or seizure unless an exception applies. These exceptions to the warrant requirement have been created by the courts interpreting and deciding when it is reasonable to search and seize persons and property without a warrant. As technology advances, the 4th Amendment must evolve as well. There is one piece of technology that has become an extension of our person, our cell phone. Many of our cell phones are overflowing with personal information such as texts, personal contacts, schedules, emails, and photos. Can a police officer search through the personal contents of your cell phone without a warrant?

On June 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled "No." To understand the importance of this ruling, it is useful to review the evolution of prior lower court decisions on this subject.

Division of the Lower Courts

Until recently, courts around the country have been split on whether a police officer could search through the contents of a person's cell phone without a warrant. In a California case, a man was stopped for driving with expired registration tags and a suspended license. The police conducted a search incident to arrest finding a smart phone in the man's pocket. A "search incident to arrest" is an exception to the warrant requirement that allows a police officer to search a person and the area immediately surrounding the person during or immediately after a lawful arrest usually for "officer safety."

The officer looked through the phone's contact list and text messages where he saw certain names preceded by the letters "CK." The police officer believed that "CK" was an acronym for "Crip Killers," a slang term for members of the Bloods gang. Hours after the arrest, a detective who specialized in gangs further examined the contents of the phone and found videos and photos associated with the Bloods gang. In one photo, the man was posed next to an automobile that had been involved in a shooting. He was later charged and convicted of three crimes including attempted murder. The California Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search of a cell phone incident to arrest as long as the cell phone was immediately associated with the arrestee's person.

A case arising out of Massachusetts had a completely different outcome. In that case, a police officer conducting routine surveillance saw an individual make a drug sale from his car. Officers arrested and seized two cell phones. After arriving at the station, the officers noticed the phone repeatedly receiving calls from "My House." The officers opened the cell phone, saw a picture of a woman and a baby set as the phone's wallpaper. They pressed a button to access the call log, saw the phone number associated with "My House," and used an online phone directory to trace the phone number to an apartment building. Officers obtained a search warrant for the specific apartment and seized drugs, cash, and weapons.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that cell phones require a warrant to be searched (completely opposite of the California Supreme Court). They reasoned that cell phones are different from other physical possessions that may be searched incident to arrest without a warrant because of the amount of personal data contained within the cell phone.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

With a clear division between the courts, the United States Supreme Court made a ruling on this issue in June of 2014. The Supreme Court held that police may not search digital information on a cell phone without a warrant. The Court reasoned that cell phones are the one device carried on the person that has an immense storage capacity and collects personal, detailed information.

The Court stated that data stored on a cell phone cannot be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate an arrestee's escape (normally the justification for a search incident to arrest). Officers may examine the phone's physical aspects to make sure that it cannot be used as a weapon, but they cannot go through the cell phone's contents because the contents cannot harm anyone. What if the contents of the cell phone might warn officers of an impending danger such as a confederate headed to the scene to harm a police officer? The Court stated that this concern should be addressed on a case by case basis and is not an issue in this instance. If it were to arise, the exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement may apply. "Exigent circumstances" typically means there is an emergency condition such as a fleeing felon, a person's life is in danger or evidence is being destroyed.

A second issue addressed by the Supreme Court was, what if information or evidence that may lead to an arrest is destroyed on the cell phone? The Court stated that there is no indication that this problem is prevalent and even if the cell phone was secured by the police, it could still be vulnerable to another person remotely wiping the cell phone's data.

The Court made it clear that this decision does not prevent a cell phone from ever being searched without a warrant, but that a warrant is generally required before a search. The narrow ruling states that a cell phone cannot be searched without a warrant pursuant to the search incident to arrest exception. However, the Court did leave the door open that in the event of an exigent circumstance, there may be a justification for a warrantless search of a cell phone.

So, aside from the cell phone situation, if the purpose of a "search incident to arrest" is primarily due to officer safety, why is a vehicle search "incident to arrest" legal? It seems to me that if the suspect is in police custody, and the vehicle is now impounded, argument could easily be made that there is no longer any concern for "officer safety". Well, unless they think there is a bomb in the car or something.. I wonder (and hope, to some extent) if someone will now use that as basis to challenge search of a car "incident to arrest".

Clearly, my above questions depend heavily on the actual statutes or laws concerning searches "incident to arrest" and is primarily based on that only being allowed based on officer safety. Not that I expect much, but I am responding to their email with those very questions, and will post up any reply..

[Cobraman]

Had a rep call and leave a voicemail this morning.

[GhostTX]

Not Texas Law Shield, but an interesting article none the less:

Just last month, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion that could cause serious problems for anyone who might find themselves involved in an incident where criminal charges are a possibility. Understandably, in such limited space, I can only attempt to summarize the decision, based on the opinions of experienced criminal trial attorneys who have generously offered their assessments. For those who wish to read the court’s opinion in its entirely, you may download the PDF file at:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S202107.PDF

This particular case revolved around a negligent vehicular homicide charge. However, the ruling has serious implications for every citizen, especially those of us who carry, because in “California v. Richard Tom” (08/14/2014), the court has essentially turned the Fifth Amendment on its head.

Most Americans are aware that it is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that protects our right to not speak when taken into custody, if to do so might incriminate us. The Miranda decision (1966) merely resulted in the now familiar warning to a potential defendant that the right exists. California v. Tom affirmed this:

“Accordingly, a suspect’s silence after being arrested gives rise to a much stronger inference of reliance on the Fifth Amendment privilege than a witness’s noncustodial silence even ‘in the face of official suspicions.’”

But remember that you also have the right to remain silent before being placed in custody. However, note that this applies (prior to arrest and/or a Miranda warning) only if you have invoked your rights:

“In order to trigger the Fifth Amendment’s protection, the court today holds, a suspect in custody may not simply remain silent. Instead, the suspect must ‘clearly,’ ‘timely,’ and ‘unambiguously’ invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege.”

Since he did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, in court Richard Tom was attacked for what he did not say (specifically, he never asked about the condition of the injured people in the other vehicle). The court upheld the right of the prosecution to use this against him.

This is dangerous ground. For if both speaking and not speaking can be used against us, then we are in a “damned if we do; damned if we don’t” scenario. As veteran criminal defense attorney and former criminal prosecutor David Gross puts it:

“In other words, he must now speak in order not to incriminate himself, and that amounts to compulsory self-incrimination by silence. This is really scary.”

While this ruling occurred in California, we have seen how bad ideas from the “Left Coast” often wind up spreading across the country. So it probably won’t be long before some prosecutor in your state attempts to reference this decision as justification for inferring “guilt by silence” in a self-defense case.

What this all means in plain English is that it’s absolutely vital that after any lethal confrontation, you immediately invoke your Fifth Amendment rights, even before you have been placed in custody. If you do, you’ll be better able to justify your silence later.

Consult your attorney on recommended wording, but in my carry classes, per my attorney friends’ instructions, I suggest a concise “script” to use the moment police arrive. “Officer, thank God you’re here. He (they) tried to kill me. I don’t want to say anything more until my attorney is with me.” Then, keep your mouth shut until your lawyer arrives.

Courts are constantly modifying and reinterpreting law, including the Constitution. As a result, understanding your rights is more important than ever.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/disturbing-california-supreme-court-decision/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CCR%209-05-2014%20-%20Subs%20NO%20TDVD%20Purchase%20(1)&utm_content=&spMailingID=9379908&spUserID=NDYzNDA5ODMxMDkS1&spJobID=380337604&spReportId=MzgwMzM3NjA0S0

[Chili]

I haven't been keeping up with adding the email(s) I receive to this thread, but figured this video they have recently published is a good one to share. It discusses some of the changes with open carry, campus carry, and 30.07 (30.06 for OC) signage. He also mentions that violation of 30.06 has been reduced to a class C Mr. Meaner (as well as the new 30.07). That said, refusing to leave with verbal notice is still class A.

[HarrisonTX]

Damn man, I Just took the class saturday, and TLS came in and did a little sell bit. Man, I'm really thinking about purchasing this actually. I'm excited to read this thread.
I was actually going to post about this here this week.

[Denny]

They are very helpfull. Back in June I shot some one that broke into my shed and we called the number on the card and they walk me through the whole thing. As of today's date the lawyer calls me just to see whats going on with the case.

Does anyone know what came of this?

[John -- '02 HAWK]

30.07 (30.06 for OC) signage.

just being picky, but thats a typo 30.07 is OC and 30.06 is CC