A question about a traffic stop

[Erik]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

Ah, thank you for the update. Between Arizona v. Gant and Arizona v. Johnson, the times they are a changin'.

[Al Norris]

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.

[rburch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

stay on topic, don't troll in this guys thread. ()

[Shorts]

mmm, use your reading comprehension skills mr luva. It fits the bill

[luvsasmith]

Originally Posted by Shorts

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]

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]

touche'

[Wildalaska]

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

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]

Originally Posted by JSHunter

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[stickhauler]

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]

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]

luvasmith wrote

Originally Posted by Creature

That's a big leap. And no.

If you think about, it's not really.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.