A question about a traffic stop - Page 2

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

He was also shocked at the amount of weapons listed on my carry permit.

That information is present??

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

Quote:

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...

Wagonman · April 22, 2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagonman

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

...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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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/adminis...s/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

Quote:

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?...ona_v._Johnson

Creature · April 23, 2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

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

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Chuckusaret · April 23, 2009, 10:57 PM

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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...

April 22, 2009, 12:27 PM	#33
LaBulldog Member Join Date: February 23, 2009 Location: Republic of Texas Posts: 55	Top court clips police authority to search cars 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.

April 22, 2009, 04:35 PM	#34
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,479	"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. __________________ Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective Last edited by Erik; April 22, 2009 at 04:46 PM.

April 22, 2009, 06:35 PM	#36
Hellbilly5000 Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2009 Location: RGV, Tx Posts: 787	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. __________________ And death climbs the steps one by one, To give you the rose that's been burnt by her son, Point me to the sky above I can't get there on my own, Walk me through the graveyard Dig up her bones

April 23, 2009, 11:02 AM	#42
LaBulldog Member Join Date: February 23, 2009 Location: Republic of Texas Posts: 55	Traffic stop policies vary among law enforcement agencies http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...s/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

April 23, 2009, 11:07 AM	#43
ilbob Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2006 Location: Northern Illinois Posts: 515	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. __________________ bob Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

April 22, 2009, 12:25 AM	#26
bclark1 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,531	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.

April 22, 2009, 10:09 AM	#29
Hirlau Junior member Join Date: January 1, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 296	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.

April 23, 2009, 10:28 AM	#41
onthejon55 Junior member Join Date: October 23, 2008 Location: Evansville, IN Posts: 411	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/

April 23, 2009, 01:48 PM	#46
Deerhunter Senior Member Join Date: April 15, 2009 Location: Northern VA Posts: 607	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.