Informing law enforcement while driving...

imported post

I plan on it, just got to figure out where the complaint form is and what i shold say. Theres a number on the back of the ticket that says "to comment to the law enforcement agency regarding the demeanor or professional behavior of the officer issuing this summons please call 757-424-6800 or 6080 or somethin, those last 3 numbers are all smudged, it was like a stamp thing. Oh and if anyone wants to know the badge number of the guy is 6629, i just found that on the ticket.

imported post

Ya. I suggest you complain about the way he spoke to you. It was wrong and inappropriate.

I often have people ask me questions while on duty about actions of other LEOs. They are stunned that I tell them to report it.

I want those bad apples gone!!

imported post

there is no need for comlaints, common, he was doing his job and his traffic stop gets recorded too so you know he is under somekind of pressure. Everybody deserves a second chance, give him one.

imported post





Complain.

imported post

swatpro911 wrote:

there is no need for comlaints, common, he was doing his job and his traffic stop gets recorded too so you know he is under somekind of pressure. Everybody deserves a second chance, give him one.

Click to expand...

Since when is lying to the general public about the law for the purpose of intimidation, part of the job description of a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER?!?

This is the exact situation where a complaint is needed. If an officer can't act appropriately in a non-conflict traffic stop to a uniformed member of the armed forces, then how is he going to act in a high pressure situation when people's lives could be on the line?

imported post

swatpro911 wrote:

there is no need for comlaints, common, he was doing his job and his traffic stop gets recorded too so you know he is under somekind of pressure. Everybody deserves a second chance, give him one.

Click to expand...

If the person in the stop had acted badly, would he/she have gotten a second chance? I do really think so.

The person getting stopped could have refused to answer any questions and that would have not been a reason to detain him/her longer. I have been asked if I was carrying, had may weapon, or if I felt the "need" to carry today during traffic stops - mostly road blocks, cannot remember the last time I was pulled over for some activity I did. Eachquestion that I am asked that does not includeproviding DL, Registration, and proof of insurance; I respectfully inform them I am choosing to remain silent. The non LEO must assume the LEO is looking for something to arrest him/her over. Only provide what you have too, and never consent to a search.

Refusal cannot be used against you or as a reason for detaining you longer.

That pretty much handles all situations.

imported post

A friend was stopped in NoVA for wearing ear phones while driving. He does not have a CHP, so he open carries, and when driving alone keeps his firearm openly displayed on the dash.

The trooper saw the revolver and asked him to exit the vehicle and assume the position at the rear of the car.

The trooper asked if the hand gun was registered in his name. He asked what he meant. The trooper asked the same question, only louder. Instead of asking another question at that time he said "No", knowing that firearm registration is not required in VA.

A second trooper arrived after 15 minutes, spoke with the first trooper, then asked my friend what kind of bullets were in the revolver. My friend told him, then was asked where he had purchased the, explaining that they were trying to determine if the bullets were illegal or not.

They then explained the "registration", that all firearm purchases required a State form be filled out for a back-ground check. When my friend explained he acquired the revolver from an aquaintence and did not involve a dealer, Trooper 2 told him that all privately purchased firearms must be brought into the VSP so the serial number could be run to see if it was a legal firearm and so a record of it could be made.

After all this, and determining the ammo was "legal", his revolver was returned in pieces.

My friend decided the side of I-95 was not the place to educate the VSP on VA firearms laws, signed his ticket, and wished the Troopers well.

Okay, anyone with a shred of knowledge of VA law knows these two made several mistakes.

When he asked me if he should complain, I voted in the affirmative, and he wrote a polite email, esplaining what happened in detail and sent it via email to bonnie.crowder@vsp.virginia.gov

Two weeks later he received a response from Lieutenant Colonel E.A. Stockton, Director of the Bureau of Field Operations for the VSP viaBud Cox, Business Manager, VSP.

In the response is this: "We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. Based on the information you provided I am forwarding your e-mail to the State Police Area Office where Trooper ************* is assigned asking that a supervisor discuss this situation with him to ensure the polices andthe procedures of the State Police, and the laws of the Commonwealth were properly followed."

This worked for my friend. Give it a try...

RussP

imported post

PackininVB wrote:

TEX1N wrote:

Thats what I've been wondering, since when do officers put their safety on the word of a complete stranger?!? It doesn't seem like a smart move if you ask me.

Click to expand...

One thing that i should note is that i was on my way back from doing an onload on the boat im about to go on for like 10 days. I was heading back to VB from norfolk and i was IN UNIFORM. Now most cops should know that you CANNOT take any weapons on base and me being in uniform should have told him that i was either leaving base or going to base and didnt have any weapons on me. just basic logic there.. I dont know anyone who would leave base, go home, grab their gun and stay in uniform... your not even allowed to get out of your car in get a pack of smokes in your utilities unless your on base at the NEX.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't understand the petty BS that is going on here. I've pulled plenty of people over, some have had guns some have not. Unless I suspected something criminal, I NEVER have asked why they have a gun or if they just show me a CCW, I just give it back to them. If they open carry, I dont even mention it (assuming they are not giving me a reason to).

It is illegal for an officer to just run a serial number just to do it. The officer needs probable cause to do so. Most officers will say Terry v Ohio lets them do that... this is a lie as well. Anyone who reads Terry will see what type of situation they are talking about.

With all this nonsense in Virginia, I guess it's good to be Federal instead of state or local.

It's quite simple. Next time an officer does any of this and is rude about it or he or she runs a serial number just to do so, file a complaint and depending on the reaction, you may be eligible for a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit. There is no reason for this.



The moral of the story here is, if you are in a state that does not mandate you notify if you are carrying, do not notify.

I understand the poster was still put in this situation anyway. The answer is file a complaint. I'm tired of hearing how hard our jobs are, it doesn't give you a free pass to do what you want. No one forced anyone to be an LEO of anykind. I do it because I love my job.

imported post

RussP wrote:

A friend was stopped in NoVA for wearing ear phones while driving. He does not have a CHP, so he open carries, and when driving alone keeps his firearm openly displayed on the dash.

The trooper saw the revolver and asked him to exit the vehicle and assume the position at the rear of the car.

The trooper asked if the hand gun was registered in his name. He asked what he meant. The trooper asked the same question, only louder. Instead of asking another question at that time he said "No", knowing that firearm registration is not required in VA.

A second trooper arrived after 15 minutes, spoke with the first trooper, then asked my friend what kind of bullets were in the revolver. My friend told him, then was asked where he had purchased the, explaining that they were trying to determine if the bullets were illegal or not.

They then explained the "registration", that all firearm purchases required a State form be filled out for a back-ground check. When my friend explained he acquired the revolver from an aquaintence and did not involve a dealer, Trooper 2 told him that all privately purchased firearms must be brought into the VSP so the serial number could be run to see if it was a legal firearm and so a record of it could be made.

After all this, and determining the ammo was "legal", his revolver was returned in pieces.

My friend decided the side of I-95 was not the place to educate the VSP on VA firearms laws, signed his ticket, and wished the Troopers well.

Okay, anyone with a shred of knowledge of VA law knows these two made several mistakes.

When he asked me if he should complain, I voted in the affirmative, and he wrote a polite email, esplaining what happened in detail and sent it via email to bonnie.crowder@vsp.virginia.gov

Two weeks later he received a response from Lieutenant Colonel E.A. Stockton, Director of the Bureau of Field Operations for the VSP viaBud Cox, Business Manager, VSP.

In the response is this: "We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. Based on the information you provided I am forwarding your e-mail to the State Police Area Office where Trooper ************* is assigned asking that a supervisor discuss this situation with him to ensure the polices andthe procedures of the State Police, and the laws of the Commonwealth were properly followed."

This worked for my friend. Give it a try...

RussP

Click to expand...

I've always wondered why it's a crime to "lie to the police", but when the police "lie to the public", it's always defended on the grounds of "we can't possibly know all the laws"

If only the police would extend to me the same courtesy when I want break the land-speed-record on I-64 at 3am.. "Uhh, Officer, I had no idea that 130mph was a violation on this stretch of highway"

I'm still waiting on the outcome of a complaint in Henrico regarding the "running of my gun" for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON other than their curiousity.

We've moving VERY QUICKLY toward a police state, and if you're "not white", you're about 10 steps closer.

imported post

psmartin wrote:

...SNIP
We've moving VERY QUICKLY toward a police state, and if you're "not white", you're about 10 steps closer.

Click to expand...

If you are not white it has always been a police state.

Regards

imported post

psmartin wrote:

I've always wondered why it's a crime to "lie to the police", but when the police "lie to the public", it's always defended on the grounds of "we can't possibly know all the laws"

If only the police would extend to me the same courtesy when I want break the land-speed-record on I-64 at 3am.. "Uhh, Officer, I had no idea that 130mph was a violation on this stretch of highway"

I'm still waiting on the outcome of a complaint in Henrico regarding the "running of my gun" for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON other than their curiousity.

We've moving VERY QUICKLY toward a police state, and if you're "not white", you're about 10 steps closer.

Click to expand...

The problem is it is not illegal until someone tellsa LEOto stop asking questions or that they do not consent to the "search". It is that simple. Most LEOs know the laws concerning illegal searches and seizures and most - if not all - departments train on how to get the citizen to waive their rights so they can do what suits their curiosity.

You have the same rights at any level of encounters with LEO, whether they tell are not. You have the right to remain silent (work on the ability to remain silentnext), the right an attorney, the right against illegal searches and seizures.

At no point have I read that someone friends or they DID tell the LEO: "I am going to remain silent. I do NOT consent to your search of my property, running the serial numbers on my gun, or even know what type of gun I have." If a LEO has probable cause, he will not ask, he will just do it. If they do not have probable cause, then a will trainedLEO will make it seem like you have to comply for one reason or another. LEO are allowed to lie to you. It is that simple, it is not from ignorance of the law, it is becauseLEOs "have" to be able to lie to you to get you give them any and all information they need to build a case against you.

Carrying Guns (yes, I normally have more than one on me or within reach) is a right just as important as being about to Shut Up and not consent to searches. You need to learn how to implement remaining silent and what type of searches are illegal when carrying a gun.

imported post

BTW, on the part about informing even if not armed, I always hand the permit to officer and if I'm not armed, I follow up with this statement "BTW, I have a permit but I'm not armed due to X. Just clearing the whole permit/firearm thing up now so their are no surprises when you get back to car. I hear cops hate surprises." Good attitude helps too.

imported post

It is not illegal for the police to lie to a citizen... nor is it illegal for a citizen to lie to the police.... Unless the police officer is conducting an official criminal investigation.

D. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. But.....

The purpose of this code is this... If your not the person under investigation... you are basically an accessory after the fact knowing something and refusing to report it.

Or... your reporting a false crime and wasting the police departments time.



§ 18.2-460. Obstructing justice.

A. If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness or any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or law-enforcement officer, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. If any person, by threats or force, knowingly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or any law-enforcement officer, lawfully engaged in his duties as such, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court, he shall be deemed to be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

C. If any person by threats of bodily harm or force knowingly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, witness, or any law-enforcement officer, lawfully engaged in the discharge of his duty, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court relating to a violation of or conspiracy to violate § 18.2-248 or subdivision (a) (3), (b) or (c) of § 18.2-248.1, or § 18.2-46.2 or § 18.2-46.3, or relating to the violation of or conspiracy to violate any violent felony offense listed in subsection C of § 17.1-805, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

D. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-310; 1960, c. 358; 1975,

imported post

Jared wrote:

The moral of the story here is, if you are in a state that does not mandate you notify if you are carrying, do not notify.

Click to expand...

+1

Overall, this is the best strategy.

Be cooperative, communicative and truthful. But don't preemptively offer the info.

imported post

Concerning a pull over for wearing headphones.... Would a hands free kit which utilizes a head set of sorts also fall into that category?

imported post

Toad wrote:

Concerning a pull over for wearing headphones.... Would a hands free kit which utilizes a head set of sorts also fall into that category?

Click to expand...

State code states a device that is used in or on both ears.




§ 46.2-1078. Unlawful to operate motor vehicle, bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, or moped while using earphones.

It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle, bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, or moped on the highways in the Commonwealth while using earphones on or in both ears.

For the purpose of this section, "earphones" shall mean any device worn on or in both ears that converts electrical energy to sound waves or which impairs or hinders the person's ability to hear, but shall not include (i) any prosthetic device that aids the hard of hearing, (ii) earphones installed in helmets worn by motorcycle operators and riders and used as part of a communications system, or (iii) nonprosthetic, closed-ear, open-back, electronic noise-cancellation devices designed and used to enhance the hearing ability of persons who operate vehicles in high-noise environments, provided any such device is being worn by the operator of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,000 pounds or more. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the driver of any emergency vehicle as defined in § 46.2-920.

(Code 1950, § 46-219.1; 1950, p. 882; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-202.1; 1989, c. 727; 1993, c. 126; 1997, c. 36; 2001, c. 834; 2002, c. 254.)

imported post

As LEO 229 posted, it is on both ears and he knew better...he got caught.

I always wonder if motorcycle helmets with headphones for communication with a passenger, also connected to a radio, etc., also qualifies under that section of the code?

imported post

RussP wrote:

As LEO 229 posted, it is on both ears and he knew better...he got caught.

I always wonder if motorcycle helmets with headphones for communication with a passenger, also connected to a radio, etc., also qualifies under that section of the code?

Click to expand...

Motorcycle riders are exempt based on the state code.


For the purpose of this section, "earphones" shall mean any device worn on or in both ears that converts electrical energy to sound waves or which impairs or hinders the person's ability to hear, but shall not include (i) any prosthetic device that aids the hard of hearing, (ii) earphones installed in helmets worn by motorcycle operators and riders and used as part of a communications system, or (iii) nonprosthetic, closed-ear, open-back, electronic noise-cancellation devices designed and used to enhance the hearing ability of persons who operate vehicles in high-noise environments, provided any such device is being worn by the operator of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,000 pounds or more. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the driver of any emergency vehicle as defined in § 46.2-920.

imported post

Well on Tue I had the oppisite happen with me and Vbpd. I was pulled for a rolling stop, but really I think it was a seat belt check. I had my .380 in the glove box, and the officer approached my vehicle from the passenger side real careful and such. So after he motioned for me to roll down the window, I did so and handed him my ID and permit before he said anything. I informed him that by the way he approched me he new I had a CCW. Then informed him that my pistol was in the glove box along with my registration. He asked if i minded if he retrieved both out of the box. I said no sir. after he got the registration and the pistol he handed back my CCw permit and said I would like to hold onto the hand gun till the end of the trafic stop. I said fine. He said I will be back in a moment. After a couple of minutes he came back and siad Mr so and so please make sure you come to a complete stop at the signs, I am just going to give you a warning.Then he said here is your liscence and I will place your hand gun and regritration back in the glove box

imported post

I'll bet he ran your serial numbers......bastard.