Terry Stop Hypothesis for Lawyers

[kodiakbeer]

Anyway, I truly am curious, as to how you would deal in an LE environment like AZ, or AK, where any (not-disqualified) person can carry openly or concealed.

I've been stopped when I'm carrying and stopped when I'm not carrying. If I just have a gun in the car, I don't bring it up. If I'm actually carrying on my person I do bring it up. In the incident when I was stopped while carrying (speeding), the trooper just "OK, thanks!" then went back to run my license, registration, etc.

If the cop had asked me turn over my handgun, I'd have done so of course, but I'd have also considered the trooper to be a jerk.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by WagonMan

Being evasive and outright lying to the Police is enough for reasonable suspicion. Because, if I ask you if there are weapons in the the car which is usually after i ask for your license and insurance and you are evasive or I happen to find said weapon in vehicle in the course of my investigation you will have a bad hair day.

Outright lying about something that doesn't exist. What a concept.

I guess it would be prudent for me to keep a written record of every traffic violation that I've ever had so that you don't "find something out via the computer that -I- didn't disclose".

I'll start reciting it as soon as you walk up to the window...

"Officer, I'd like you to know about the gun that I'm NOT carrying with me today, it's at home in the safe. I'd also like you to know that I was ticketed for failure to obey a traffic device on December 18th 1986 and also on....."

I mean, I wouldn't want you to find something in the computer that I don't disclose.


I guarantee you. G U A R A N T E E You, that if you searched my car because I did not disclose to you a gun that I WAS NOT CARRYING, it would be YOU having a bad day after my lawyer talked to your Chief. I would stop at nothing short of your career if it were up to me.

[sixgun67]

Wagonman, since as I've stated earlier, my state doesn't require any notice whatever if I'm not carrying concealed, I'd offer one other tidbit--I am not being smart about this, so please don't take it that way. Since my state attaches my CCP to my license plate, in all fairness, you have already been notified when you ran my plate. So I would want that you (or any other) as the officer to not play coy about it. That would constitute you're notice from me that I have a permit, and since I'm not informing, that means I'm not carrying. Now granted, I don't know your state, but the states I travel thru honor my permit and obviously to me, it's rules and regulations. To me it isn't worth the trouble from the police that are not on the same page, from a state that is not on the same page.



Peetzakilla, I surely doubt you'd be told why you/your car was being searched. That would be a little detail your lawyer would have to dig up. Lots of reasons could be named. Years ago, I was searched one night after an officer saw an unopened 12pk of beer on my back seat--made me lock the car up and call someone or he was gonna get me for 'intent to consume'. His words. My words were, sure I intend to consume it, the store clerk established that one a little earlier.....

[Wagonman]

I guarantee GUARANTEE you whatever I do on the street I am able to and will be able to justify to whomever you may think would be in the position of affecting my career. I have been doing this for way too many years not to be able to justify my actions.

I enjoy bloviating and I am sure that my report writing prose can and will hold me in good stead.

But, I believe that you are intentionallly missing my point to be argumentative.

[sixgun67]

I have been doing this for way too many years not to be able to justify my actions.

Anybody making this statement fears me greatly.

[maestro pistolero]

Anybody making this statement fears me greatly.

Why? I am no defender of Wagonman, in fact we've butted heads so severely I got warned about LE bashing once.

I guarantee GUARANTEE you whatever I do on the street I am able to and will be able to justify to whomever you may think would be in the position of affecting my career. I have been doing this for way too many years not to be able to justify my actions.

You could take that statement two ways. The way I take it is that he first conducts himself in a way that's defensible, then articulates the report in a way that doesn't invite scrutiny.

You seem to think he's bragging about being a good liar. Am I wrong?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by WagonMan

I believe that you are intentionallly missing my point to be argumentative.

I don't think so.

You're saying that I would be lying to you by not telling you about a gun that I DON'T HAVE.

You're saying that my failure to tell you about a gun that I DON'T HAVE is reason to pull me from my vehicle and search me for the gun THAT I DON'T HAVE.


I'm telling you that you and your chief would hear from my lawyer. I don't care if you think that you can justify your actions.

If you can justify searching a car for failure to disclose a NONEXISTENT weapon then you can search a car for ANY reason. We both know that's not true.

You are COMPLETELY ignoring my points. What about the guy with the carry permit that has never carried in 30 years?

You claim to believe that having a carry permit puts the person in the "good guy club". Why would the person not being a mind reader change that assumption?

What is the rationale for believing that everyone with a permit is not only going to "think like a cop" but also think like YOU, since no officer that I've asked about this issue has agreed with you yet?

[ScottRiqui]

Remember, from his posts in here, Wagonman appears to talking about frisking an unarmed subject and searching his vehicle simply because the subject didn't notify him of the fact that he possesses a CHL (which is perfectly within the law in every state that issues CHLs). If that's not in fact what Wagonman is saying, I'd love to get a clarification.

I don't know what sixgun67 was saying, but when I hear a police officer describe a frisk/vehicle search scenario that I'm pretty sure would be ruled invalid and unconstitutional, and then proceeds to say that he'd have no problems justifying it to his superiors, that brings two possibilities to mind: Either he's planning on twisting the facts in his report, or he knows his superiors won't give a crap.

[kodiakbeer]

I guarantee GUARANTEE you whatever I do on the street I am able to and will be able to justify to whomever you may think would be in the position of affecting my career. I have been doing this for way too many years not to be able to justify my actions.

I enjoy bloviating and I am sure that my report writing prose can and will hold me in good stead.

Which is why the rest of us should remember the golden rules of dealing with the police. Never give a policeman permission to search your home or vehicle. Keep your mouth shut beyond the words "Yes" or "No". If anyone in your vehicle has any type of recording device turn it on immediately and do NOT let the policeman know about it. Try and stay in front of the police units own camera and speak loudly enough that your words are recorded.

Most cops are decent guys just trying to do their job, but you never know when you'll run into the "other type".

[ScottRiqui]

Good points - it's scary to think about it, but if you run across a cop that has it in for you for some reason and is also willing to lie, all of your "protections" beyond what you're able to secure personally for yourself immediately go out the window.

[Wagonman]

You could take that statement two ways. The way I take it is that he first conducts himself in a way that's defensible, then articulates the report in a way that doesn't invite scrutiny.

That is exactly what I meant.

What is the rationale for believing that everyone with a permit is not only going to "think like a cop" but also think like YOU, since no officer that I've asked about this issue has agreed with you yet?

You have asked Coppers what do they do when they catch someone in a lie? I find it hard to believe that a Copper would not further investigate someone they caught lying to them.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by kodiakbeer

Which is why the rest of us should remember the golden rules of dealing with the police. Never give a policeman permission to search your home or vehicle. Keep your mouth shut beyond the words "Yes" or "No".

Denying permission to search your vehicle will do you no good with an officer who believes as WagonMan apparently believes. I would wager that all you would accomplish is wasting your time sitting on the roadside waiting for the K9 to show up and sniff around your vehicle.

If you're lucky, they won't call a hit and search your vehicle anyway, just because you had the gall to refuse the search.

Either way, the best thing that happens is you waste an hour of your day.

It would be easier in my world to just consent to the search and be on my way. I have nothing to hide anyway. I may as well let the cop have his power trip.

[ScottRiqui]

You have asked Coppers what do they do when they catch someone in a lie? I find it hard to believe that a Copper would not further investigate someone they caught lying to them.

This may be where what I'm understanding isn't what you're intending to say.

Are you saying that when an unarmed subject doesn't spontaneously volunteer the fact that he has a CHL, that he's somehow "lying" to you or being "evasive"?

[kodiakbeer]

Denying permission to search your vehicle will do you no good with an officer who believes as WagonMan apparently believes. I would wager that all you would accomplish is wasting your time sitting on the roadside waiting for the K9 to show up and sniff around your vehicle.

I have lots of time. Let them waste their time, then call an attorney - remember it's all recorded. I have nothing to hide, so refusal to cede my own 4th amendment rights is not a valid reason for him to violate my 4th amendment rights. At that point, he's the criminal, not me. I'm not going to yield to criminals, badged or otherwise.

[hogdogs]

So in Fla. I can tote a fully loaded firearm so long as it ain't my person in my ride and without the CCW or possible chance they will get an alert on the motorola/laptop, I am in better graces than a licensed CCW permit holder?
COOL!!!!
Brent

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In Texas, I believe that if you do not have a CHL and you have a weapon in the vehicle, the weapon has to be secured outside of one's arm reach.

For the record, this is an incorrect statement of Texas law.

"Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

(2) the person is:

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01."

The weapon cannot be in plain view, other than that, you are OK as long as you can legally possess the weapon and aren't doing something illegal.

And while currently, Texas does not require you to notify a LEO that you have a CHL, I believe that it is in one's best interest to do so.

This is also an incorrect statement of Texas law.

"Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license. "

[kodiakbeer]

And while currently, Texas does not require you to notify a LEO that you have a CHL, I believe that it is in one's best interest to do so.

This is also an incorrect statement of Texas law.

Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person....

[Wagonman]

Are you saying that when an unarmed subject doesn't spontaneously volunteer the fact that he has a CHL, that he's somehow "lying" to you or being "evasive"?
*

No, I am saying that if I ask you a direct question and you lie to me I will investigate the matter thoroughly. It isn't about some power trip. It is me doing my job

[kodiakbeer]

No, I am saying that if I ask you a direct question and you lie to me I will investigate the matter thoroughly. It isn't about some power trip. It is me doing my job

Your job is to ask people if they have a CHL? Do you also ask about their gym membership, political party, bowling score, religion, ethnicity, religion, tighty-whitey vs boxer preference, marital status?

I'd suggest your job is to ask for a drivers license, registration and proof of insurance, unless you see a bag of heroin or a gun lying in plain view.

[Maromero]

In conclusion when involved in a traffic stop you can do it the easy way or the hard way, indistictively on what's right or wrong, legal or illegal.

[Wagonman]

Your job is to ask people if they have a CHL? Do you also ask about their gym membership, political party, bowling score, religion, ethnicity, religion, tighty-whitey vs boxer preference, marital status?

No, I ask anything I think is relevant to the T-stop. Whether or not you have a weapon is something I am interested in.

[kodiakbeer]

No, I ask anything I think is relevant to the T-stop. Whether or not you have a weapon is something I am interested in.

Why would having a weapon be relevant to a traffic stop? If he's a CHL holder, he's already obligated to tell you if he has a weapon on his person. If he's not a CHL holder, whether he may or may not have a firearm in his car is none of your business.

[TXGunNut]

I did the LEO thing for quite a few years but never developed the "us-against-them" mentality. I've also been a CHL holder since shortly after they were introduced here in the great state of Texas. I know several CHL instructors and of course, quite a few cops. In my CHL class we were told of the law (quoted earlier by Batholomew Roberts) but were also encouraged to go one step further; to present the license anytime a peace officer asked for ID and to let them know if and what we were carrying. It's my opinion that a CHL is proof that the licensee is a law-abiding citizen and most cops think as I do.
Cops are taught to expect the worst, some see things a bit differently than I do. I always saw CHL carriers as allies, not adversaries. Cops have enough enemies without making more. I was a pretty fair report writer but never felt the need to use that skill to criminalize a marginal act. I could make all the good arrests or write all the good tickets I wanted to, most times more. Never made an arrest for simply "P***ing off the Police". Never wrote a ticket just to generate numbers, never needed to. Nice thing about making good arrests is that after awhile you don't go to court much. A good arrest and a good report are pretty hard to beat in court and attorneys on both sides recognize that. JMHO, of couse, but it worked for me.

[Wagonman]

Why would having a weapon be relevant to a traffic stop? If he's a CHL holder, he's already obligated to tell you if he has a weapon on his person. If he's not a CHL holder, whether he may or may not have a firearm in his car is none of your business.

You have an interesting concept of what is or is not the Copper's interest on a traffic stop. You really didn't just ask why the person being stopped for at least breaking traffic law is being queried as to whether or not he or she is armed. It is attitudes like this that beget bad laws. Are you really staking out the position that a Police Officer cannot interview offenders?

[ScottRiqui]

Wagonman, I think you and I may have been picturing different scenarios all along.

An unarmed CHL holder has no responsibility or legal requirement to spontaneously bring up the fact that possesses a CHL, but if you decide for whatever reason to ask if he has a weapon and he flat-out refuses to answer, I agree that should raise your suspicions, and would probably serve as justification for a Terry frisk and vehicle search.

Now, if you find something in the car other than a weapon (drugs or stolen property, for instance), its admissibility would likely be a matter for an evidentiary hearing.