|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 23, 2010, 12:50 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Scott,
Refusing to answer the question of a police officer, i.e. invoking your right to remain silent, can not be the basis for pulling someone out of a vehicle for a terry search. |
May 23, 2010, 01:01 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Re-read Terry v. Ohio regarding frisks and the subsequent Michigan v. Long regarding vehicle searches. They both basically set a lower standard for "reasonable suspicion" in the case where the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the subject may be armed. The searches aren't used predominantly for evidence-gathering the way other searches are - they're used out of concern for the officer's safety.
I personally don't believe that an unarmed person neglecting to mention having a CHL fits the requirement (although a lawyer friend of mine disagrees), but if an officer asks a subject point-blank if he has a weapon and the person refuses to answer, even I agree that would justify a Terry frisk and vehicle search. But again, the admissibility of any non-weapon-related evidence may be in question. |
May 23, 2010, 01:17 PM | #78 | |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Quote:
1)I am a licensed driver 2)Do i have current required insurance 3)Do I have a current vehicle registration 4)Did I know i was speeding 5)Why was I speeding 6)Could it be a defective speedometer Nothing about, again in your own words, this traffic stop has any "relevance" to my possibly carrying a loaded firearm legally in my center console or under my seat... so why would you ask? The reason i don't keep it in the glove box is I don't want to have to explain to an officer that I will be revealing my loaded firearm when I go to retrieve my paperwork... Brent |
|
May 23, 2010, 01:27 PM | #79 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
|
Quote:
If you ask me if I'm a CHL holder or if I have a gun in my car (a perfectly legal thing to have in most states), then you are merely fishing - using a traffic stop to harass a citizen. I'm going to politely answer your questions and do so truthfully, but you're going beyond the bounds of what a public servant should be doing. As a CHL holder I'm already obligated to tell you if I have a firearm on my person. If you ask permission to search my car, the answer is going to be "No". You're going to have to lie to create probable cause or get a warrant. I'm not going to be intimidated into ceding my 4th Amendment rights. |
|
May 23, 2010, 02:09 PM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,014
|
Scott, you got it.
Kodiak, I wOuld reread Terry if I were you. Terry allows me to be reasonably inquisitive in my dealings with the public. I would advise anyone not to lie and be reasonably forthcoming in interactions with the Police. As I have said repeatedly I am not "fishing" to jam up Joe Legit with my initial questioning I am attempting to fully understand who I am dealing with. Dogs, the why doesn't matter as far as the law. It matters that you are committing the violation. It might mitigate the enforcement but not the illegality. |
May 23, 2010, 02:15 PM | #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
Not answering questions does not weigh in at all in justifying a vehicle search because of the 5th amendment. How am I doing Wagonman? |
|
May 23, 2010, 02:41 PM | #82 | |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Quote:
Back to my last post, the presence of a legal firearm in the vehicle but not held by me really has no relevance on a simple traffic stop... If you do ask if I have a weapon I will list all of them including my fists and elbows... But your curiosity or fear shouldn't result in a show and tell session as your safety is secure with it left alone where it is, just like my safety is insured so long as yours stays in the holster... Brent |
|
May 23, 2010, 03:24 PM | #83 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
|
Quote:
If you push the envelope into demanding a search, the answer will be "No". If you threaten or intimidate or lie to try and force me to allow a search, there will again be a civil action. Don't take that personally - the "you" is entirely generic. I don't think most cops would use criminal means to effect a search or shakedown, but we both know that some will. Police are representative of the population as a whole and so there are likely to be as many criminals with badges as there are in the general population. I'm not trying to be a cop-basher. I like and respect cops and think they do a fine job for little reward. If you treat me with respect and courtesy, I'll take my ticket and go on my way with a nod and a smile. I don't want to make your job any harder than it already is. |
|
May 23, 2010, 03:36 PM | #84 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
At this time, I would like to remind everyone, that the interpretation of "reasonable" (and the resultant "reasonable man" standard) is a legal fiction determined by the courts.
It is not your definition, nor mine, or any dictionary you care to use. It is the definition that the courts have opined and will use in examining what Wagonman (and all LEOs) does. The courts have found that questions (fishing) not directly related to the traffic stop, but related to officer safety, are reasonable. |
May 23, 2010, 03:41 PM | #85 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
|
Another thread (with video) of what we are talking about here.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=410576 |
May 23, 2010, 04:23 PM | #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,014
|
Dogs, I was refering to the traffic violation not the issue of the weapon.
Antipitas, you are indeed correct. The hundreds of machine guns, the hundreds of keys of Peruvian marching powder. etc you have at home are not fair game on a T-stop. Things that can affect my safety are reasonable for me to inquire about. Quote:
Last edited by Wagonman; May 23, 2010 at 04:34 PM. Reason: Language filter |
|
May 23, 2010, 04:30 PM | #87 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I'm glad of that, Wagonman! I'd play hell moving all that stuff from Idaho to your house in Illinois...
|
May 23, 2010, 04:37 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,014
|
Anti, LOL.
|
May 23, 2010, 04:48 PM | #89 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
Quote:
Remember in Gant the Supreme Court said the search was unreasonable. If you would arrest someone for a traffic ticket just to search their vehicle you have no business with a badge. By your own admission you do threaten and intimidate by threatening people with arrest for traffic violations just to search their vehicle. You have also admitted a willingness to search vehicles in violation of the law. |
||
May 23, 2010, 04:57 PM | #90 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
If the officer asks if you have a gun? If you have one on you and it is illegal you have three options: 1. Incriminate yourself 2. Lie to the officer (which is a crime in most jurisdictions) 3. Remain Silent I would argue that any evidence discovered because of a search of a suspect who refused to answer questions would be inadmissable. You have to have more than just "he refused to answer my questions" as the basis for your Terry search. |
|
May 23, 2010, 05:18 PM | #91 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
vran, I think you and I are on exactly the same page! So will you entertain my opinion regarding my Fla law that includes the CD to include my vehicle... So do I have to volunteer I am armed? If a cop comes to my house and asks, I will tell 'em to buzz off... So why volunteer the info in my mobile extension of my home? And if I do admit to having a gun in my car, why would I have to submit it upon request to an officer? If a cop is at my house door and wants me to hand over my firearm/s, he would get a little more colorful version of the aforementioned "buzz off"...
Brent |
May 23, 2010, 05:29 PM | #92 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
|
Quote:
I have zero respect for that kind of cop. None, nada, zip. The average criminal operates on a higher moral plane. Now we have an entire nation being run by the same Chicago mob. |
|
May 23, 2010, 06:28 PM | #93 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
May 23, 2010, 06:43 PM | #94 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Maestro, so you are stating that the arrest is basically a bogus way to gain entry under the guise of "inventory" assessment of the vehicle of a person who may be getting arrested for a failed tag light?
Pretty neat way to circumvent the citizens' constitutional civil rights... NEATO!!!... NOT COOL! Brent |
May 23, 2010, 06:59 PM | #95 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
I have a huge problem with bogus arrests just to circumvent the 4th amendment by "inventory".
In Knowles v. Iowa the supreme court said: Quote:
So under Gant an arrest for a traffic violation would not warrant a search unless the officer could show that the suspect could still access the vehicle which is hard to do when in the back of a squad car. |
|
May 23, 2010, 07:33 PM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,014
|
No Dogs it isn't. When I arrest someone I have to safeguard their belongings. So I administratively tow and inventory the vehicle. It is not a bogus arrest it is me playing by the rules the SCOTUS lays down. Like I said I have PC when I pull you over to arrest you so it's up to you whether it's a ticket or a physical.
|
May 23, 2010, 07:41 PM | #97 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
|
Quote:
|
|
May 23, 2010, 07:41 PM | #98 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
Last edited by Al Norris; May 23, 2010 at 08:17 PM. Reason: Removed personal attack. |
|
May 23, 2010, 07:55 PM | #99 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
When you arrest a citizen for a traffic INFRACTION not a CRIME, you put your self into the realm of seriously out of control rogue officer and anything you find "inventorying" my ride will be deemed inadmissible with any decent defense attorney pointing out during the evidentiary hearing, the heinous abuse of power just so you can get yer rocks off looky looing my stuff...
Sorry to say it but I am glad to have you prove that there are cops out there like those many folks try to tell me do not exist... Why terry stop the average guy or search a car at random when you need to be walking the beat in Chicago doing walk ups (YES WALK UPS NO PATROL CAR) on the inner city thugs and do your part to get the illegal guns from the hands of those not allowed to have them? You might just get a little peruvian marching powder off the street too. If ya'll were doing your part to protect and serve, your fine mayor may not be after even more intrusive guin laws that only limit the honest man! Brent |
May 23, 2010, 07:58 PM | #100 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,014
|
Where is the "corruption"
1, I observe traffic violation 2, I curb said vehicle 3, offender is evasive in answering my questions and uses his discretion to not allow me to search his vehicle. 4, I use my discretion to instead of a warning or at most a ticket to physically arrest the offender. 5, instead of leaving his vehicle in a lane of traffc I tow his vehicle to secure it. Since I am responible I have to inventory everything in the vehicle to make sure there isn't a briefcase full of money missing when he retrieves his vehicle. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|