PDA

View Full Version : A question about a traffic stop


JSHunter
April 21, 2009, 09:24 AM
Yesterday afternoon I was pulled over for not completely stopping at a stop sign. I have a concealment license and keep a pistol in my truck with me at all times. I have been told by other police officers that the appreciate it when a person tells them there is a gun in your vehicle, so I did so. My concern is what happened after this. I was asked to step out of the truck and where I kept it. I can understand why I needed to step out of the truck. I do not understand why I needed to tell her where it was. She then took my gun back to her car, unloaded it and wrote me a ticket. Is it her place to remove my property from my truck like she did? I don't believe she should have. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks guys.

a7mmnut
April 21, 2009, 09:30 AM
I don't believe she should have, either-not in NC anyway. I usually just show them my license and CCH permit at the same time with no usual controversy. Most states do allow officers to do whatever is necessary in the interest of safety, but I'd have to check with VA state and local law provisions on this one.


-7-

Shorts
April 21, 2009, 09:44 AM
Look up VA law.

In TX, law states that an LEO can remove a pistol from one's possession during a stop. They do give it back when the stop is complete. See if there is a similar law for VA.

lowbud
April 21, 2009, 09:52 AM
I have had it both ways. One time the cop didn't care and another where he asked me for it and took it with him then gave it back when the stop was complete. It all depends on the cop and physically where the gun is located i suppose. The first stop I had it strapped to my side and the second stop it was in my sweatshirt pocket where my wallet was.

Creature
April 21, 2009, 09:55 AM
VA law states that you are not legally obligated to inform a LEO when you are legally carrying a concealed weapon.

Dragon55
April 21, 2009, 09:59 AM
If it's only a traffic stop and the gun is secured out of sight then why worry about it. Best bet with law enforcement.. which is part of the justice system... is to not start volunteering any info. Simply answer politely any questions you are asked.
If there is a reason for a felony stop .... mistaken identity...etc. and there is gonna be a search then absolutely announce you have a legal gun in vehicle.

chris in va
April 21, 2009, 12:43 PM
VA law states that you are not legally obligated to inform a LEO when you are legally carrying a concealed weapon.

Very true. However they have a record on their screen showing the CC permit.

I've handed over my permit 4 times, once in WV. He was appreciative and gave me a warning (speeding), the other three simply handed it back to me saying "I don't need this".

ar15chase
April 21, 2009, 12:50 PM
In TX if we have the gun, durign a stop, then you must show your CHL, and the officer can disarm you until the stop is over.
When I took my class, the instructor told us about him getting stoped in a small town around here, he said the officer took his gun, and had him pop his trunk, the officer then removed the magazine and unloaded all the ammo, after issuing the ticket, the officer told him not to go retrieve his gun and load it until the officers car was out of sight. Sounds a bit excessive on LEO's part, but legal.

Creature
April 21, 2009, 12:55 PM
Very true. However they have a record on their screen showing the CC permit.

Which is why any LEO in VA worth his/her salt will know before walking up to your vehicle whether you are legally allowed to carry a weapon or not. But alas, as I found out in person, some LEO's sometimes dont bother running plates before approaching vehicles which they have stopped. In my opinion, all LEO's should be asking whether or not any weapons are present in the vehicle at the same time they ask for your license and registration...

pax
April 21, 2009, 12:59 PM
Officers have very broad discretion during traffic stops (and other citizen interactions) to assure their own safety. We may not like it, but for the most part it's quite legal. This was based on a Supreme Court ruling 40 years ago:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/education/cybercourt/1999/feb/terry.html

Different LE agencies may have different guidelines for their officers (typically it varies based on the local political climate), but in any case the officer was within her legal rights to remove and control your weapon for the duration of the stop.

pax

jfrey123
April 21, 2009, 03:12 PM
Just got stopped the other day while carrying, first time it had ever happened to me. In Nevada, there is no law requiring to inform the officer, but I chose to. Informed him, with hands up on the steering wheel and palms open, that I had something I needed to tell him before we start. I told him I have a valid CCW permit, and I am in deed armed.

Little bit of chit chat about the piece, he was surprised a 5 shot .38 could fit in a pocket with a holster and conceal just fine. He was also shocked at the amount of weapons listed on my carry permit. He never even ran my information, informed me the registration on my company vehicle was expired, and that I should have book keeping stay on top of it.


All in all, good stop and good experience. Usually I carry on my hip if I'm not working, and my fear is that an officer approaching from the passenger side might see the weapon while I'm digging for my wallet in the back pocket on that same strong side... I chose to inform the officer up front to avoid having his muzzle in my ear.

Wagonman
April 21, 2009, 03:17 PM
Running the plate doesn't help if not your car.

Fox1
April 21, 2009, 04:03 PM
In Nebraska, we are required to inform LE that we are carrying when interacting with them in an official capacity.

I've never been stopped outside of my county so I don't know what those officers do.

I was stopped in my county once and when I told the LE (that I knew) that I had a firearm in my vehicle, his response was, "What?!? Only one???"

cjw3cma
April 21, 2009, 05:34 PM
About a month ago, while taking my daughter to the airport over in Medford, OR, I got pulled over for speeding (doing 64 in a 55 - the officer said that the locals were complaining about how fast everyone was doing through that stretch) and I handed him both my D.L. and my carry permit. He gave me back the permit and said I don't this, but he did give me a ticket. Nice guy.

scorpion_tyr
April 21, 2009, 05:50 PM
It's legal in my state, but even if it's not I wouldn't complain. Look at how dangerous a routine traffic stop can become. Sure, you know you're not a BG, but the LEO doesn't.

You meet someone for the very first time ever. 10 seconds after you meet them, they tell you that they have a gun. How does this make you feel?

I would never complain about a LEO removing and unloading a firearm. It's not about the legality of it to me, it's about respect.

Creature
April 21, 2009, 06:38 PM
Sure, you know you're not a BG, but the LEO doesn't.

...the kicker is LEO's are supposed to NOT treat you like the BG from the get-go for a simple traffic stop.

scorpion_tyr
April 21, 2009, 07:52 PM
...the kicker is LEO's are supposed to NOT treat you like the BG from the get-go for a simple traffic stop.


I drive a little on the fast side so... I've had my weapon taken and unloaded a few times. Maybe I was fortunate enough to have dealt with officers more professional than some people, but I've never fealt like I was being treated like a BG. I just felt like the LEO was taking precations so he could go home and see his kids that night.

Now if the officer was to draw his weapon or over-react in another way, then I might feel like I had been mistreated.

Hirlau
April 21, 2009, 07:54 PM
Creature,
As you have heard before; there is no such thing as a simple traffic stop.

In the Op, all was done well by the driver and officer. I would have been more upset by the ticket; than whether she removed by gun to unload.

Quote: "
Which is why any LEO in VA worth his/her salt will know before walking up to your vehicle whether you are legally allowed to carry a weapon or not."

How do come up with this? How do you think officers obtain their information; prior to and after the initial stop?

blume357
April 21, 2009, 08:06 PM
oddly enough the highway patrolman asked me if I minded if he took the pistol back to the car with him... I said no, did he mind if I unloaded it first, he said no. So, with him watching I pulled out my pistol, dropped the mag and ejected the round and handed him the pistol...

I think they just want to play with the gun, to be honest.
then again they could be running a check on the serial number to see if it was stolen.

Surely every LEO out there knows that if you mean them harm they would never get to the point of you informing them you have a gun.... they'd realize it while laying in the street bleeding out.

I guess I'm from the old school and believe that LEO's are your friend. In 35+ years of driving I think I've gotten one ticket that I question. And just about every cop I've ever met was very professional.... even the ones that woke me up one night standing by my bed with an arrest warrant.

scorpion_tyr
April 21, 2009, 08:19 PM
I think they just want to play with the gun, to be honest.


If I was LE, I would :D A routine traffic stop would probably turn into a 2 hour discussion on all things that go bang. Might even pop the trunk and offer the driver a beer.

Maybe that's why I'm not a LEO :D

Brian Pfleuger
April 21, 2009, 08:26 PM
You just gotta get to know them a little. The last time I got pulled over I hadn't talked to the guy in probably 18 months.

I think we stood there and talked half his shift.:) Slow night, which is good in that business.

Creature
April 21, 2009, 08:58 PM
How do come up with this? How do you think officers obtain their information; prior to and after the initial stop?
All the LEO has to do in VA is run the plates before they even exit their cruiser...

Hirlau
April 21, 2009, 09:21 PM
Not to insult you Creature, but you just given an "uninformed" answer, but exactly what I expected you to say.

I type with one finger at a time, so sorry for short answers. I am going to learn the keyboard starting this week; partly do to the time I have spent on this forum , the past few months.

I will get back to you and anybody else interested ,soon, with an insight on vehicle stops and CCW. I have wanted to contribute something to the forum for a while. I have learned so much from people here that I feel I owe something in return. I don't hunt and my knowledge of firearms is surpassed by many on this forum. I can though, give you(others) insight into interacting with police while armed.

All for now, Friend.

KLRANGL
April 21, 2009, 10:57 PM
Not to insult you Creature, but you just given an "uninformed" answer, but exactly what I expected you to say.
How is that uninformed? Its totally true, they just run your plate on their on board computer and if the vehicle is registered in your name and you have a CCW, it will show it... Therefore, if they run your plate, which they do, then they will know you have a CCW. (my buddy is a cop in VA)

Now, if I was a cop, if I saw someone had a CCW permit, i'd be breathing a sigh of relief. And if someone told me they had a gun on them, i'd again breath a sigh of relief... who freakin tells a cop they have a gun if they're going to do something bad with it? Thats why some cops annoy me, and why I never tell them im carrying unless they ask. When I got pulled over, it was dome lights on, wallet out with license and registration in hand and hands at 2 and 10 at all times. No fuss no muss and comment from the cop.

Michael Anthony
April 21, 2009, 11:33 PM
This is the other side of a topic being discussed in another thread.

The way you described the incident, I believe the officer secured a firearm that was in your immediate control. Officers are allowed more leeway when taking action for the purpose of officer safety.

If your Fourth Amendment rights were violated in the process, the only caveat to the officer's actions would be that any evidence of a crime found might become inadmissible in court. However, there is a chance that if they "officer safety" steps taken were legal or supported by case law, then evidence found as a result may be admissible.

The Supreme Court has allowed evidence before that was obtained while ensuring officer safety, so long as the actions taken are reasonable.

All in all, there was nothing wrong with what you described. The other thread though describes a lengthy search and seizure for the purposes of investigating possible criminal activity. That is different, and illegal if here is no probable cause. This officer just took a reasonable step to remove at least one possible way of getting killed on a traffic stop.

bclark1
April 22, 2009, 12:25 AM
I really dislike the Terry rubric with respect to CCW. To me, it basically implies that "gun = criminal." Yes, there must be reasonable suspicion for the officer to search the stopped citizen. And of course officers should be aware of weapons when they are facing a potential criminal.

But beyond that it gets clumsy. Everyone becomes a potential criminal, and all guns the implement. From a practical standpoint, it's erosive to the 2A, though perhaps necessarily as I can't articulate a better framework that preserves the officers' interests. Still, we (shooters) found ourselves upon the knowledge that guns don't make the criminal, and that laws and procedures will be ignored by the criminal. Those who do not carry arms illegally should be given some presumption that they do not do other things illegally, either. Of course this creates a contradiction when one is stopped for illegally speeding, but I'd like to think that we can draw a line between speeding and armed assault.

We know guns aren't the problem, but accept a standard by which guns are an excuse to look for problems. Some of the stories here really suggest this has given rise to some perverted thinking. If an officer has to say "Don't pick up the gun until I'm out of range," he either needs to decide if he's dealing with a psychopath (and thus should not return the weapon at all), or if he needs a career that's less involved with firearms.

Creature
April 22, 2009, 06:30 AM
How is that uninformed? Its totally true, they just run your plate on their on board computer and if the vehicle is registered in your name and you have a CCW, it will show it... Therefore, if they run your plate, which they do, then they will know you have a CCW. (my buddy is a cop in VA)

Hirlau thinks that things only work the way he is familiar with there in FL...

Okay, Hirlau..."inform" us. Tell us how us how things work here in VA.

Shorts
April 22, 2009, 08:15 AM
He was also shocked at the amount of weapons listed on my carry permit.


That information is present?? :eek:

Hirlau
April 22, 2009, 10:09 AM
Quote: "(my buddy is a cop in VA)"


Unfortunately, this statement sums up what most people base their knowledge of police practice and procedure on.

Yes, Creature, I will give you my 2 cents on this topic, in time; with a thread devoted to it.

KLRANGL
April 22, 2009, 10:14 AM
Unfortunately, this statement sums up what most people base their knowledge of police practice and procedure on.
What, fact? Seems like a good way to go for me...

Thats like saying I know nothing about engineering because I only heard it from my engineering professors... :rolleyes:

Wagonman
April 22, 2009, 11:05 AM
I really dislike the Terry rubric with respect to CCW

Terry doesn't deal with CCW, it is reasonable suspicion incident to street stop.

For a arrest subsequent to a street stop you have to have an articulable reason for stopping said offender.

The standard is less than probable cause.

Shorts
April 22, 2009, 11:09 AM
Terry doesn't deal with CCW, it is reasonable suspicion incident to street stop.

I think that's the point.

It is not unheard of for LEOs to start fishing.

LaBulldog
April 22, 2009, 12:27 PM
Supreme Court limits warrantless police searches to instances when an officer or evidence is in danger.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0422/p02s01-usju.html

Washington - Ending a decades-long trend favoring law enforcement, the US Supreme Court has moved to restrict the ability of police to conduct open-ended searches of automobiles during traffic stops.

In a 5 to 4 decision announced Tuesday, the nation's highest court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not permit police to conduct a warrantless search of a car unless the search is immediately necessary to safeguard the arresting officer's safety or to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence.

The decision means that police cannot rely on a mere traffic violation to authorize a general search for guns, drugs, or other contraband. Such searches created "a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.

"The character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment – the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person's private effects."

The ruling in Arizona v. Gant narrows a 28-year-old rule that had authorized law enforcement officials to conduct car searches without a warrant during traffic stops. In a subsequent decision, the high court expanded that rule to allow searches without a warrant even after a motorist was being held securely in police custody.

Now, police will have new rules to follow. Justice Stevens said the location of the arrested person is important. If that person is still "within reaching distance of the passenger compartment" – in other words, able to potentially disturb evidence or grab a weapon – police can conduct a warrantless search, he wrote. The majority justices said the justification for a warrantless automobile search disappears once the motorist has been handcuffed and placed safely in a patrol car. After that, police must obtain a court-authorized search warrant from a neutral judge.

Stevens added that a warrantless search would also be justified "when it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest."

The ruling is expected to require retraining at police agencies across the country.

In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the high court's new rule may endanger arresting police officers. He said it will also confuse law enforcement officials and judges "for some time to come."

Justice Alito added: "The court's decision will cause the suppression of evidence gathered in many searches carried out in good faith reliance on well-settled case law."

Tuesday's decision stems from the August 1999 arrest of Rodney Gant by the Tucson Police Department. Officers were investigating suspected drug activity at a house in Tucson. They had encountered Mr. Gant at the house earlier in the day.

A records search revealed an outstanding warrant for Gant's arrest for failing to appear on a charge of driving with a suspended license. That evening, Gant was arrested on the outstanding warrant shortly after he parked and exited his car near the house.

Once arrested, Gant was handcuffed and placed in the backseat of a patrol car. The police then searched Gant's car, where they found cocaine and a handgun.

Gant was charged with possession of cocaine for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.

At trial, Gant's lawyer moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that police had conducted an unreasonable search of his car by failing to first obtain a search warrant or Gant's permission. Prosecutors argued that the case triggered an exception to the warrant requirement. Because Gant had only just exited the car, they said, police were entitled to search the vehicle in connection with his arrest.

The trial court upheld the search. Gant was convicted and sentenced to a three-year prison term.

The Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court both ruled that police violated Gant's Fourth Amendment privacy rights by conducting the warrantless search of his car.

They ordered the seized evidence suppressed. The courts reasoned that at the time of his arrest, Gant was not in close proximity to his car, so police officers had no reason to initiate an immediate search of the car.

Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In addition to Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer dissented.

Erik
April 22, 2009, 04:35 PM
"It is not unheard of for LEOs to start fishing."

Unheard of? It is expected. A LEO who isn't "fishing" isn't doing his job to the fullest. It should be something good LEOs do as a matter of course. Which has little if anything to do with the thread's topic.

As for the thread's topic, it is allowable to separate firearms from individuals during enforcement actions. Some folks do so as a matter of course; i.e. all individuals are always separated from their firearms. It is allowable, for the reasons already cited.

bclark1
April 22, 2009, 06:10 PM
Terry doesn't deal with CCW, it is reasonable suspicion incident to street stop.

For a arrest subsequent to a street stop you have to have an articulable reason for stopping said offender.

The standard is less than probable cause.

I'm not much of a crim pro buff but I'm with you on that much. My point being, where does the officer's discretion vest with respect to CCW in view of the law on interactions under stop-and-frisk or searches incident to traffic stops? I imagine some CCW statutes must have contemplated this, but the stories here suggest there is a wide variety of good and not-so-good behavior being executed pursuant to justifications that are ambiguous at best.

I also just want to reiterate my peripheral point that it's distressing for so much legal justification relating to searching "bad guys" is grounded in the possible presence of weapons. In a free society where people may carry weapons, it seems odd that a weapon's mere existence would call for its removal from the carrier. While police must at times "trust no one" for their own safety, I don't think this should legitimize the abrogation of a law-abiding citizen's rights.

Hellbilly5000
April 22, 2009, 06:35 PM
When i lived in Ks I got pulled over by a Pratt county sheriffs deputy for a head light out. Im 10 miles from anything and when he pulled me over I informed him I have a gun in the car because I bought it before I went to work that day. He goes ok what kind. I told him and his response was. !@#hole I wanted to buy that. (it was an H&K VP70Z from 1984) Long story short we went a few miles down a dirt road to his house and went target shooting at 1 am while he was on duty.

Kmar40
April 22, 2009, 07:25 PM
Top court clips police authority to search cars
Supreme Court limits warrantless police searches to instances when an officer or evidence is in danger.

I suggest you take some time to read the whole opinion. That isn't what it says, but what do you expect from journalists? There are about 5 or 6 exceptions related to a stop that are intact and they are specifically discussed near the end of the majority opinion. It only limited the sweep associated with an arrest, which was always an odd duck imo.

Kmar40
April 22, 2009, 07:31 PM
...the kicker is LEO's are supposed to NOT treat you like the BG from the get-go for a simple traffic stop.

Most won't, at least in my experience. It may be different in NJ or Kali or some other gungrabber socialist republic.

There are three factors that can change affect that though:

1. The cop- they come in good and bad versions in probably roughly the same proporation as the general populace.

2. You- a lot of what the cop is doing is trying to read your body language and responses. They may respond to a negative attitude, but mostly they are looking for things amiss, excessive nervousness, stories that don't make sense, etc.

3. The situation- where, when, and for what reason you were stopped will affect the situation greatly.

Creature
April 22, 2009, 07:53 PM
Yes, Creature, I will give you my 2 cents on this topic, in time; with a thread devoted to it.


Okey-dokey.

Wagonman
April 22, 2009, 11:06 PM
I also just want to reiterate my peripheral point that it's distressing for so much legal justification relating to searching "bad guys" is grounded in the possible presence of weapons. In a free society where people may carry weapons, it seems odd that a weapon's mere existence would call for its removal from the carrier. While police must at times "trust no one" for their own safety, I don't think this should legitimize the abrogation of a law-abiding citizen's rights

I cannot be considered an expert as I work in the Peoples republic of Chicago and anyone with a weapon is breaking the law.

That said, I would think that in a CCW jurisdiction having a legit CCW would not be a precursor to a "Terry" search.

I have wondered how Coppers handle CCWs.

onthejon55
April 23, 2009, 10:28 AM
If you are not required to tell them then dnt. They have no right to remove your property or search your vehicle without your consent. Allowing them to do so only encourages more abuse of the 4th amendment. heres a sight that is devoted to your rights. watch their vid on youtube. i cnt post the link because im on a school computer right now.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

LaBulldog
April 23, 2009, 11:02 AM
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/stop.htm

Traveling on Texas Roadways with Concealed Handguns

Traffic stop policies vary among law enforcement agencies. Your local police department or sheriff's office can tell you what to expect if stopped while carrying a handgun within their jurisdictions.

Texas Department of Public Safety troopers will ask you:

* Whether you are licensed to carry a concealed handgun
* Whether you have the gun with you
* Where the gun is located

A trooper may disarm a licensee anytime he or she feels that safety is at risk. The trooper will return the gun at the end of the traffic stop when the threat to safety has passed.

When stopped by a law enforcement officer, DPS recommends that you:

* Keep your hands in plain sight
* Cooperate fully with the police officer
* If you have a gun with you, tell the officer as soon as possible
* Don't make any quick movements, especially toward the weapon
* At night, turn on your vehicle's dome light

You can contact the Concealed Handgun Licensing Bureau at :

REGULATORY LICENSING SERVICE MSC 0245
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
PO BOX 4087
AUSTIN TX 78773-0245
Phone: (512) 424-7293 or (512) 424-7294
Helpline: (800) 224-5744

ilbob
April 23, 2009, 11:07 AM
Fix the real problems rather than futzing around the edges of it.

Do we really want armed government agents stopping citizens solely because they have a tail light burned out? Thats nuts in and of itself. Answer is cop writes down license number and you get a letter in the mail telling you to fix your tail light. No need to pull you over at all. This is something that has to be changed at the legislature level.

Shorts
April 23, 2009, 11:21 AM
Fix the real problems rather than futzing around the edges of it.

Do we really want armed government agents stopping citizens solely because they have a tail light burned out? Thats nuts in and of itself. Answer is cop writes down license number and you get a letter in the mail telling you to fix your tail light. No need to pull you over at all. This is something that has to be changed at the legislature level.


Arizona vs Johnson: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Arizona_v._Johnson

Creature
April 23, 2009, 11:29 AM
Do we really want armed government agents stopping citizens solely because they have a tail light burned out? Thats nuts in and of itself. Answer is cop writes down license number and you get a letter in the mail telling you to fix your tail light. No need to pull you over at all. This is something that has to be changed at the legislature level.

Why is that nuts in and of itself? The police perform a public safety function, ... do they not?

I am willing to bet that a burnt-out brake/taillight has created more than one accident with injuries and fatalities in the past. In fact, a faulty tail light will not pass any state's vehicle safety inspection that I am aware of. To me, it seems like the proper thing for a LEO to do is to notify the motor vehicle operator of a safety issue with his/her vehicle IMMEDIATELY... hence the pull over.

Deerhunter
April 23, 2009, 01:48 PM
I hope I just didn't miss a response to this but.......Here is VA if you have a permit it is tied to your vehicle tag. When a cop pulls you over and runs your plates it will come back that you have a permit to carry. I was in my buddy's car and he got pulled over. The cop walked up and stopped at the rear corner panel and asked if he was carrying. My buddy wasn't at the time. The cop then walked up and chatted with us. So what that means is even if someone else is driving your vehicle the cops are going to ask if you are carrying at the time when they stop you.

KLRANGL
April 23, 2009, 06:07 PM
So what that means is even if someone else is driving your vehicle the cops are going to ask if you are carrying at the time when they stop you.
May ask. Cop never asked if I was carrying when he stopped me, and I was carrying...

The cop walked up and stopped at the rear corner panel and asked if he was carrying
Again, this baffles me. Why take more precautions with someone with a permit? Im not saying let your guard down, I would just personally feel more safe knowing they had a CCW...

Wagonman
April 23, 2009, 09:50 PM
o we really want armed government agents stopping citizens solely because they have a tail light burned out? Thats nuts in and of itself. Answer is cop writes down license number and you get a letter in the mail telling you to fix your tail light. No need to pull you over at all. This is something that has to be changed at the legislature level.


Minor traffic violations have led to great arrests, traffic enforcement is good probable cause to investigate suspicious people.

I have never heard of anyone thinking that legitimate traffic stops are wrong. :confused::eek:

Chuckusaret
April 23, 2009, 10:57 PM
they just run your plate on their on board computer and if the vehicle is registered in your name and you have a CCW

The CCW permit does not come up when the LEO runs your DL and tag in Florida. I have been stopped several times and the LEO was not aware that I had CCW. On one stop I gave the LEO my DL, Insurance card and CCW permit. He handed the CCW permit back and simply said "I don't need this".

Chuck
flaguns.com/phpBB3/index.php

KLRANGL
April 23, 2009, 11:10 PM
I have never heard of anyone thinking that legitimate traffic stops are wrong.
Unless you think many/most traffic laws are wrong...

The one time I was pulled over I thought was legitimate, because bars had just closed and he wanted to see if I was driving drunk. He got me on a technicality, and still gave me the ticket :mad:
Tax collectors, the lot of them...

Anyway, the point is I know some good cops. And the good cop stories I hear about dont involve pulling people over for stupid things and harassing them about having a legally possessed weapon in the car...

Erik
April 24, 2009, 01:11 PM
"That said, I would think that in a CCW jurisdiction having a legit CCW would not be a precursor to a "Terry" search."

The presence of a CCW holder in a vehicle is not a precursor to a Terry Search.

(Old) Terry Search of a Vehicle Guidelines:

General:
In Terry v. Ohio, the SCOTUS held that a LEO could perform a frisk of a suspect if, during a lawful stop, the LEO has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that suspect might be presently armed and dangerous. The rational supporting the frisk of a suspect's person has been extended to include vehicles.

Requirements:
There are two for a lawful "frisk" of a vehicle for weapons: (1) A LEO must have lawfully stopped the vehicle that is the subject of the "frisk." Like the investigative detention of a person, this element requires that the LEO have a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that criminal activity is afoot and that the driver or passenger is involved. (2) The LEO must have a reasonable belief that the driver or passenger is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon.

Scope:
If the requirements are satisfied, a LEO may frisk the person, as well as the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle and any unlocked containers in the passenger compartment. Note: While the LEO cannot generally "frisk" locked containers, some federal courts have begun to allow this practice. Note 2: Trunks are generally not allowed to be frisked, though the issue of frisking trunks with "pass through" features or alterations are being considered.

New - (See below)

Hope that helps - Erik

Erik
April 24, 2009, 01:13 PM
"I have never heard of anyone thinking that legitimate traffic stops are wrong."

I'd wager that a significant portion of ticket receiving individuals, but not the majority, believe them to be wrong.

Wagonman
April 24, 2009, 01:48 PM
I'd wager that a significant portion of ticket receiving individuals, but not the majority, believe them to be wrong.

LOL
I guess that would be the case.

I think some are confusing "revenue" stops with real Police stops

Al Norris
April 24, 2009, 04:52 PM
There is a bit of new stuff to consider with the January Decision in Arizona v. Johnson, as it regards Terry Stops.

The Supreme Court held that:
the first condition of Terry v. Ohio, i.e. a lawful investigatory stop, is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation;
police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity; and
to justify a pat-down of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.

Notice that the initial investigatory stop (first condition) need not be (statutorily) criminal. Just needs to be a lawful investigatory stop.

Erik
April 24, 2009, 05:54 PM
Ah, thank you for the update. Between Arizona v. Gant and Arizona v. Johnson, the times they are a changin'.

Al Norris
April 24, 2009, 08:33 PM
And I'm behind in my reading. I have yet to fully digest Gant. Even though it appears fairly straight forword, the devil is always in the details. :rolleyes:

rburch
April 25, 2009, 09:33 AM
I'll add my story here,

I was pulled over last week cause my brake light was out. I work at a car dealership, and was in a dealership owned car.

I handed over my drivers license, auto salesmans license, and ccw permit.

He asked if i was armed, i told him it was in a lockbox under my seat. He thanked me for informing him, and ran my licenses

(that took like 10 minutes, but he told me because there's somebody with same birthday and similar last name, and very similar physical characteristics, who's wanted for several felonies in virginia. Explains why it always takes 3-4 hours for my background checks to clear when i buy a gun:barf:)

He gave me my licenses, told me to have a nice night and went on his way.

He did also tell me that their systems do inform them if the tag or license is registered to somebody with a carry permit.

Ricky
April 25, 2009, 10:09 AM
This is a little off subject as I live if California and don't have a carry permit.
Many years ago my wife and I went shooting. We were on our way home. I had a .22 rifle in a gun rack ,back window of my pickup. A sheriff pulled me over "Because I could see that is no bb gun there" I pointed to my S&W Model 19 in a pistol case on the seat between my wife and I. I said well, if you are concirned about a .22, that's a .357 in this case. I was pointing to it, hands were not near the zipped case at all. He jumped back and put his hand on the butt of his pistol and asked me to hand it to him. I complied and before taking it he asked me to take it out of the case. I looked at him, thinking about how nervous he seemed to be and asked him if maybe he should take it out. He relaxed a bit and agreed with me. He took my gun back to his car and ran the numbers. In those days a lot of cops were carrying that gun and he told me he wanted to make sure that it wasn't a stolen cops gun.
He handed me back my gun and praised me for having my ammo in the back of my pickup, guns in the front in plain sight.
I'm sure that this whole thing happened because we were just entering our neighborhood, It was our 1st. home and in one of the poorer neighborhoods in the area.
My point is, I was complying with the law. I was curtious and respectful and this guy was so nervous I can imagine things getting ugly real fast if I had done anything wrong.

luvsasmith
April 25, 2009, 10:20 AM
Legal in Ohio and I could see myself doing the same thing as the officer in your situation did, if your actions or her senses called for it. Officers are often targets and a wide variety of clues lend themselves to making an Officer more aware or even suspicious of things and people around them, often times the general public is not aware of those things. Try to look at it as an Officer who was being cautious and not insulting or belittling to you. I am very pro 2nd Amendment and believe every person who has not forfeited the right to have a weapon through their actions is provided the opportunity to possess and carry under the 2nd Amendment and I also believe a targeted group like Law Enforcement Officers should be afforded the right to protect themselves, within reason, while keeping the rest of us safe (even those who they pull over for a California Roll).

Shorts
April 25, 2009, 10:58 AM
Has anyone noticed that when you apply for the carry license they will keep it in tandem with your driver's license number? Of course (as in 'gotta be' in my reasonable comprehension) the information is connected.

Edited to add how this is on topic:
It is reasonable to think that when you get pulled over in a traffic stop that the information will be displayed, if not easily accessible by the LEO.

luvsasmith
April 25, 2009, 11:09 AM
stay on topic, don't troll in this guys thread. (:D)

Shorts
April 25, 2009, 11:15 AM
mmm, use your reading comprehension skills mr luva. It fits the bill ;)

luvsasmith
April 25, 2009, 11:18 AM
mmm, use your reading comprehension skills mr luva. It fits the bill

But I just had to....

Speaking of reading comprehension skills (or spelling or typing or ???).....


Mr. Luv(s)a

cracked91
April 25, 2009, 11:27 AM
Well you guys have to understand, during the academy they get to have the pleasurable experience of watching countless videos where an officer walks up to a car and is shot, or is shot as he is walking back to his car. The older ones who have been on the streets for a while are going to be more relaxed, the younger ones are gonna drop a load in their pants. Thats just how it goes (most of the time anyway)

Shorts
April 25, 2009, 11:44 AM
:D touche'

Wildalaska
April 25, 2009, 11:48 AM
Well you guys have to understand, during the academy they get to have the pleasurable experience of watching countless videos where an officer walks up to a car and is shot, or is shot as he is walking back to his car. The older ones who have been on the streets for a while are going to be more relaxed, the younger ones are gonna drop a load in their pants. Thats just how it goes (most of the time anyway)

Cops arent allowed to be in condition yellow, only armed citizens:p

Ya see, if an armed citizen sees a suspicious looking girl scout knocking on his door, he is entitled to and rightfully should draw the pistol he wears 24/7 as he opens the door. Thats because armed citizens have the judgement and training to know when and where to utilize deadly force with that shiny new gun they bought at the gunshow yesterday, plus everyone knows from reading message Boards that Illegal Mexican immigrant cartel Home Invaders frequently disguise themselves as girlscouts, meals on wheels reps and Mormon Missionaries so as to achieve armed entry into your home to kidnap you and bring you back to mexico where you will be sacrificed to Aztec gods.

On the other hand, cops should are not entitled that same lattitude. Thus, when they pull over the vehicle with the busted tailight at 3am that has been circling around the local Stop and Rob for the past 15 minutes, even thinking of asking whether there is a weapon in the car would violate the rights of American citizens...especially in light of the fact that they get no training on law and tactics and suchlike, they are merely given a badge and told to go out and violate the rights of as many persons as possible...

WildicouldgoonwithdialogueandsuchlikebutimtiredAlaska TM

Dr. Strangelove
April 25, 2009, 12:15 PM
Yesterday afternoon I was pulled over for not completely stopping at a stop sign. I have a concealment license and keep a pistol in my truck with me at all times. I have been told by other police officers that the appreciate it when a person tells them there is a gun in your vehicle, so I did so. My concern is what happened after this. I was asked to step out of the truck and where I kept it. I can understand why I needed to step out of the truck. I do not understand why I needed to tell her where it was. She then took my gun back to her car, unloaded it and wrote me a ticket. Is it her place to remove my property from my truck like she did? I don't believe she should have. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks guys.


You told the officer you had a weapon, presumably she would not have even known one was present otherwise, so why does she feel the need to remove it from the vehicle? Safety? Come on, you volunteered the fact a weapon was present and your violation hardly warrants suspicion of any further problems.

Is the officer/the state taking responsibility for your weapon? If they drop it to the ground on the way to/from their patrol car, will you be reimbursed for the repair cost? After all, they are disarming you for "their safety", not because you committed a crime with the weapon.

Addressing officer safety, is it safe for a police officer to be unloading a firearm that may be unfamiliar? Many police officers know less about firearms than the general public would suspect. What if the officer has an accidental discharge while handling your firearm?

Why does the officer feel the need to remove the disarm someone for "the safety of the officer"? In that case, the officer should leave their service pistol in the patrol car when they come back from "disarming me". If I can't have a weapon, they don't need one either. I might have other concealed weapons, you say? Yes, but then why bother taking away the one I told you about?

stickhauler
April 26, 2009, 02:08 AM
Of my states law (Ohio), a CCW is tied to your vehicle registration as well, and I was told a CCW holder has the responsibility to inform a police officer of your CCW license, if armed, or not, and to ask what the officer wants you to do after you inform them of that information.

I ain't got a problem surrendering my firearm to a LEO if that is going to make them feel safer in the situation doing so. My holding a license to carry concealed doesn't automatically make me anything special, it simply means that I had been law abiding enough to qualify for a license at the time it was issued. And I fail to understand the attitude that a LEO asking that you hand over your weapon in a stop violates any civil right you have, or that it insults you in any way.

I had to laugh at the comment that if a cop sees you driving with a light out that they should simply note it, and have the department send you a letter in the mail informing you of a vehicle problem. Judging from the amount of vehicles I see every week on the road as a trucker, the sheer volume of mail that plan would generate would more than pay off the national debt in a short time.

Creature
April 26, 2009, 08:47 AM
I ain't got a problem surrendering my firearm to a LEO if that is going to make them feel safer in the situation doing so.

Are you willing to surrender your firearm if that is going to make Mr. Obama feel safer too?

Wagonman
April 26, 2009, 09:24 AM
Ah, thank you for the update. Between Arizona v. Gant and Arizona v. Johnson, the times they are a changin'

It just gives us another form to fill out. If I want to search a offenders car I have to tow it now. Just more nonsense

luvsasmith
April 26, 2009, 10:32 AM
Are you willing to surrender your firearm if that is going to make Mr. Obama feel safer too?

That's a big leap. And no.

stickhauler
April 26, 2009, 01:52 PM
Quote:
I ain't got a problem surrendering my firearm to a LEO if that is going to make them feel safer in the situation doing so.
Are you willing to surrender your firearm if that is going to make Mr. Obama feel safer too?

I believe you present a much different scenario in that case don't you? I guess simply making a statement about allowing a police officer a level of comfort in a traffic stop situation with a CCW holder is lost on you. Of course, take things to a indictment that anyone who would do so is somehow less of a civil rights advocate than you are, and of course, do it in the most insulting manner you can muster.

I have a lot of friends who are cops, I also know of situations where armed people who had never been a danger to anyone suddenly decide to do something totally out of character. Of course, in a perfect world, everyone who ever obtained the right to carry concealed always remain a perfect citizen, who never makes an irrational act. We don't live in that damned world, do we?

My state requires a CCW holder to inform the officer of your status in a traffic stop, and it's suggested that you do so and also include whether you are at the present time or not, and then ask the officer what they'd like you to do. If a simple act like that can make a LEO feel more at ease in the encounter, I fail to see what the problem is.

In the case of Mr. Obama, I doubt seriously he will request that I turn over my firearm to him, he'll send his minions to do the dirty work instead. That will only occur IF every gun owner in this country suddenly buries their head in the sand and refuses to fight for our 2nd amendment rights.

But thanks for taking a discussion that simply reflected the appropriate actions to take in a traffic stop while armed and try to turn it into some claim that people who don't answer the way you wanted are somehow less of a advocate of gun rights than you are. FOCUS!

Erik
April 26, 2009, 04:42 PM
So here's where we're at, vehicle search option wise:

1. Consent Search -
There are two requirements for a consent search to be valid. (1) The consent must be voluntarily given. (2) The consent must be given by someone with either actual or apparent authority over the place or thing to be searched. For example, the owner of a vehicle would have actual authority to consent to the search.

An individual may limit the scope of the search.

2. Inventory Search -
There are three requirements: (1) the vehicle must have been lawfully impounded. (2) A standardized inventory policy must exist. (3) The inventory must be conducted in accordance with the standardized inventory policy.

As a general rule, inventory searches may not extend further than necessary to discover valuables or other items for safekeeping. Treading near the policy line? Why not get a warrant?

3. Search Incident to Arrest -
See new guidelines set forth in Arizona v. Gant. What changed with Gant: Officers cannot search a vehicle as a matter of routine following the arrest of the driver. Departments and their personnel will adapt. More detail to come as the time to dig into Gant arises.

4. Vehicle Exception -
There are two requirements: (1) There must be probable cause to belive that evidence of a crime or contraband is located in the vehicle; and (2) the vehicle is readily mobile.

A search conducted pursuant to the vehicle exception may be conducted at the scene or after the vehicle has been impounded. However, in instances where the vehicle is already impounded, why not pursue a warrant?

5. Terry Frisk (of a vehicle or occupant) -
There are two requirements: (1) A LEO must have lawfully stopped a vehicle. (2) The officer must have a reasonable belief that the driver or passenger is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon.

Creature
April 26, 2009, 06:23 PM
luvasmith wrote
Originally Posted by Creature
Are you willing to surrender your firearm if that is going to make Mr. Obama feel safer too?
That's a big leap. And no.

If you think about, it's not really.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 26, 2009, 06:31 PM
Yapping irrelevancies about Obama will make this thread cease. Please say on the real world topic (despite how one might want to go to political flights of slippery slopes).

Given what I know about how surprises can cause bad things to happen, I am happy not to surprise an armed officer with my instrument of lethal force. Very pragmatic but not preachy.

Jofaba
April 26, 2009, 06:34 PM
Still have a lot of reading to get this whole thread but wanted to type a response and it wouldn't be changed by anything I read, so figured I would jump the gun. No cute pun intended.

So, I absolutely plan on handing over my permit if I ever get pulled over. It's been half a decade since I have, but even though I have experienced police doing things that I would have wished they wouldn't, including a cop who ran my plates when I asked for directions running me down instead of letting me know that the two bucks late fee on a speeding ticket had resulted in my license being revoked arresting me after leading me to the road I was looking for, I have the complete and upmost respect for all LEO, and as long as they don't shoot me or hurt me, I give them full authority during a traffic stop to protect themselves, since it's the most dangerous thing they do.

Creature
April 26, 2009, 08:09 PM
Okay...lets get to the relevant matter then. Encountering an otherwise non-threatening citizen who legally has a firearm holstered on his or her person should NOT be "surprising" to a LEO. That is merely a citizen exercising his or her right to carry. What would be "surprising" would be the LEO encountering a citizen who POINTS a gun at him. Now that's pragmatic.

stilettosixshooter
April 27, 2009, 01:24 AM
+100, Erik and Antipitas. This area of the law is complicated and sticky at best...and apparently ever-changing. Kudos for staying on top of it.

If I were a lawyer (not yet) and were giving legal advice (absolutely not), I'd say to keep your brake lights working and your speed under the limit if you want to keep the cops' noses out of your vehicle (and/or keep anything they find in your car out of court). :)