Fauquier deputy nags me for not informing him I had a weapon in the vehicle...

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIPWhat you believe is "Unacceptable" does not mean it is a violation.

Click to expand...

LEO229,


We do seem to have a persistent disagreement over making complaints.

How about this proposal for a fair solution:From now on, whenever I advocate making a complaint, I'll PM you so you can go to that thread and make your case for not making a complaint (or making one, whichever you deem appropriate). And likewise, whenever you advocate against making a complaint, you PM me so I can go to that thread and and present my ideas.

I'm sure the forum will be able to form their own opinion even if neither of us says anything. If our input does influence the OP or the forum,I think they can choosebased on who articulates their ideas best and makes the most sense.

What do you say?

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Police may frisk a vehicle’s passenger compartment including unlocked containers if reasonable suspicion exists an occupant is armed and dangerous, Michigan v. Long (1983).

Click to expand...

"armed and dangerous" is a 2 part requirement, 229 - the facts in the poster's post above do not implicate any "dangerousness" at all.

imported post

Hey!LEO229. I have an idea! Lets discuss making complaints as a separate subject on a new thread.

I'll start here. If you want to talk about it, we can just start a new thread. Anybody else can, too.

START:

There is no reason complaints have to be limited to violations of rules, policies, laws, etc. If we accept the premisethat a complaintmust, then it necessarily follows that police, courts, and legislatures set the rules for what is and is not acceptable.

The First Amendment guarantees our right to petition government for redress of grievances.Complaints fall in this category.

I am of the opinion that if an LEOgives so much as the tiniest hint that he does not have a deep respectfor the Bill of Rights a complaint should be made.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP......If you have a CC permit it will be known as soon as your license is ran.

Click to expand...

Form an LLC.

Transfer the ownership of your vehicle to the LLC.

Break the license=CC permit linkage.

The downside: Annual fee to keep LLC registered with state corp. commission.No "personal property" tax exemtion.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

You better check your facts....

Police may frisk a vehicle’s passenger compartment including unlocked containers if reasonable suspicion exists an occupant is armed and dangerous, Michigan v. Long (1983).

Once the deputyobserved the holster in the vehiclehe can rightfully suspect there is a weapon in thecarto go in it. He can then order everyone out and do a protective sweep.

Click to expand...

Good evening 229, ChinChin here. . .how ya doing?

Point of clarifacation requested. By the statement you made above, is it your contention as an active police officer that the mere presence of a firearm, or empty holster for same when no crime has been comitted, nor suspected to have been comitted (as was the case as related in the OP's account, minus the traffic infraction of course) is automatic reasonable supicion for a complete search of the vechicle, driver and any passenger(s)?

imported post

Though I don't open carry yet, and don't have a CHP to carry concealed, if I was stopped on the way to the range, with guns in the trunk, I'd tell the officer. I would do it out of coutesy so he can react in an informed and safe manner.

Do I have to do that, when they are in the trunk? No. But I'd rather disclose and let the officer be comfortable with the situation, then let it escalate should the officer want to search the trunk (no idea why they would want to, as I'm not thuggish or anything).

I look at it this way, they have a job with enough risk and stress when things go bad. I try to do what I can to eliminate that.

I'm polite and courtious to them, even if they aren't deserving. I can always file a complaint later if they are rude.

I always try to have my wallet out if I get to it without it looking like I'm grabbing a gun, and have both hands on the wheel, with the wallet out, when the officer walks up. Again, this is out of courtesy. I ask permission before I make a movement as well.

I know that may sound like overkill, but if it keeps the cop from getting freaky, it's good IMHO. Also, it has honestly gotten me lesser tickets, or no tickets, in some situations, as the cop was happy with how well I cooperated with the the situation.

HTH

Jason

imported post

You might want to reconsider your stance. Never just allow a LEO to search your property, they may have a right to a Terry search but don't give them access to anything else without a warrant. You might think you are doing the right thing but there may be unintended consequences.

imported post

captkirk9195 wrote:

Though I don't open carry yet, and don't have a CHP to carry concealed, if I was stopped on the way to the range, with guns in the trunk, I'd tell the officer. I would do it out of coutesy so he can react in an informed and safe manner.

Do I have to do that, when they are in the trunk? No. But I'd rather disclose and let the officer be comfortable with the situation, then let it escalate should the officer want to search the trunk (no idea why they would want to, as I'm not thuggish or anything).

I look at it this way, they have a job with enough risk and stress when things go bad. I try to do what I can to eliminate that.

I'm polite and courtious to them, even if they aren't deserving. I can always file a complaint later if they are rude.

I always try to have my wallet out if I get to it without it looking like I'm grabbing a gun, and have both hands on the wheel, with the wallet out, when the officer walks up. Again, this is out of courtesy. I ask permission before I make a movement as well.

I know that may sound like overkill, but if it keeps the cop from getting freaky, it's good IMHO. Also, it has honestly gotten me lesser tickets, or no tickets, in some situations, as the cop was happy with how well I cooperated with the the situation.

HTH

Jason

Click to expand...

You areNOT required to report ANY weapons in the car. As you said.. it is done as a courtesy. This is very appreciated and this type of behavior is often timesrewarded with a warning ticket or the original ticket being lowered to some minor.

If there is reason to suspect a weapon may be in the car, The courts have ruled that the officer may search the "passenger" compartment to be certain there are no weapons that can cause him harm during the stop. The trunk is still off limits.

Having your wallet out prior to being approached is excellent. I have seen this many times. Advising if you can move is not really neededbut this increases your chances for a warning ticket.

imported post

Beware the paradigm consideration-expectation-requirement.

imported post

It comes down to courtesy and professionalism -- do you think there would've been a different outcome if, instead of saying, "You should have informed me you were armed", he said, "Sir, I'd appreciate the courtesy of being notified that you're armed if I were to stop you again?"

The implication that you "should have notified" and then being insistant on that point, even though someone is not legally required to do so, is something that should be brought up with his supervisor if the end result is an officer not attempting to influence his own will over the law.

imported post

Mike wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Police may frisk a vehicle’s passenger compartment including unlocked containers if reasonable suspicion exists an occupant is armed and dangerous, Michigan v. Long (1983).

Click to expand...

"armed and dangerous" is a 2 part requirement, 229 - the facts in the poster's post above do not implicate any "dangerousness" at all.

Click to expand...

Is someone armed with a handgun not a possible danger?

It appears thatyour definition of"dangerous" would have to be someone attempting to actually use the gun and not just possess it.

Are you saying..... The person would have to bea obvious threat to the officer andwould require verbal threats to harm him, holding the gun in his hand, pointing the gun at the officer, or even shooting at the officer?

If this were true, why then would the courts need to give the officers the ability to search the passenger compartmentduring a traffic stop and allow the occupants to return to the vehicle?

If the person is that dangerous...he would simply be arrested and therewould be a search incident to an arrest. The person is definitelynot going to be placed back in his car.



Mike, there are times you just do not think outside the box and you get fixated on the single words alone. Please focus on the intent and not try to craft the code to work in your benefit.

It is at the officers discretion to decide if the OP is a danger or not. In this case, it appears that he did not. Otherwise he would have disarmed him. I have met the OP and does not give that appearance and seems pretty cool.

I will give you a clear cut example of a dangerous person so that you may better understand the purpose....

The OP is a known gang member. There is a holster or ammunition visible in the vehicle. Do you still think I should not check the vehicle for my safety?

Wait.. no need to answer.. I suspect that I know what YOU will say. :lol:

imported post

Is someone armed with a handgun not a possible danger?

It appears that your definition of "dangerous" would have to be someone attempting to actually use the gun and not just possess it.

...

Mike, there are times you just do not think outside the box and you get fixated on the single words alone. Please focus on the intent and not try to craft the code to work in your benefit.

Click to expand...

Out of genuine curiosity, if your interpretation were the case, why is the condition armed AND dangerous? Why not just armed?

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Mike wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Police may frisk a vehicle’s passenger compartment including unlocked containers if reasonable suspicion exists an occupant is armed and dangerous, Michigan v. Long (1983).

Click to expand...

"armed and dangerous" is a 2 part requirement, 229 - the facts in the poster's post above do not implicate any "dangerousness" at all.

Click to expand...

Is someone armed with a handgun not a possible danger?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that make every LEO on the beat a danger, per your own reasoning.

Sorry 229, but I'm not going to let that one slide.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIPWhat you believe is "Unacceptable" does not mean it is a violation.

Click to expand...

LEO229,


We do seem to have a persistent disagreement over making complaints.

How about this proposal for a fair solution:From now on, whenever I advocate making a complaint, I'll PM you so you can go to that thread and make your case for not making a complaint (or making one, whichever you deem appropriate). And likewise, whenever you advocate against making a complaint, you PM me so I can go to that thread and and present my ideas.

I'm sure the forum will be able to form their own opinion even if neither of us says anything. If our input does influence the OP or the forum,I think they can choosebased on who articulates their ideas best and makes the most sense.

What do you say?

Click to expand...

I appreciate your willingness to negotiate a resolution. Your insistence on people filing frivolous complaints is what caused our on line friendship to dissipate.

I am not awarethat I have everposted to NOT file a complaint unless I first observed someone suggesting it and it is obviously frivolous. If it is a valid complaint I supported it and explain why. I do recall on several occasions where I suggested the complaint to be filed because what was done was really wrong.

I am no expert in this area but as an adult I am aware of what is and is not appropriate behavior. I have just seen so many BS complaints filed and done for personal and vindictive reasons. This is simply not fair to the officer who did nothing wrong but "be wrong" in the eyes of the person complaining.

imported post

ChinChin wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

You better check your facts....

Police may frisk a vehicle’s passenger compartment including unlocked containers if reasonable suspicion exists an occupant is armed and dangerous, Michigan v. Long (1983).

Once the deputyobserved the holster in the vehiclehe can rightfully suspect there is a weapon in thecarto go in it. He can then order everyone out and do a protective sweep.

Click to expand...

Good evening 229, ChinChin here. . .how ya doing?

Point of clarifacation requested. By the statement you made above, is it your contention as an active police officer that the mere presence of a firearm, or empty holster for same when no crime has been comitted, nor suspected to have been comitted (as was the case as related in the OP's account, minus the traffic infraction of course) is automatic reasonable supicion for a complete search of the vechicle, driver and any passenger(s)?

Click to expand...

If I read it correctly... What is a cop rolls up on aguy armed with a gun or an empty holster who has not committed a violation of law?

Answer: No.

The person can still be viewed as possibly armed and dangerous but the courts have ruled that absent a crime pending, in progress, or occurred... you cannot just pat people down for no reason. You have to suspect some type of violation is involved first.

The difference is that the person is entitled to walk away but in the OPs situation he could not. Punishment was going to take place and identity verified.

Some people are wanted and will kill cops to remain free. Some people kill cops so that they do NOT get a ticket. Many of us have seen this on reality shows showing cops being shot and later being told that the driver simply did not want the ticket or was wanted.

imported post

Wynder wrote:

It comes down to courtesy and professionalism -- do you think there would've been a different outcome if, instead of saying, "You should have informed me you were armed", he said, "Sir, I'd appreciate the courtesy of being notified that you're armed if I were to stop you again?"

The implication that you "should have notified" and then being insistant on that point, even though someone is not legally required to do so, is something that should be brought up with his supervisor if the end result is an officer not attempting to influence his own will over the law.

Click to expand...

Agreed....

I would have said it differently as you suggested.

Saying you "should" have gives the appearance that it was required. But then... it is not. The mandatory word would have been "shall." The word should is actually optional word.

But then.. cops are stupid and uneducated people with nothing more than a GED or high school diploma. It is not our fault we are a product of the American educational system. We cannot spell, write proper sentences, or communicate very well.

imported post

Wynder wrote:

Is someone armed with a handgun not a possible danger?

It appears that your definition of "dangerous" would have to be someone attempting to actually use the gun and not just possess it.

...

Mike, there are times you just do not think outside the box and you get fixated on the single words alone. Please focus on the intent and not try to craft the code to work in your benefit.

Click to expand...

Out of genuine curiosity, if your interpretation were the case, why is the condition armed AND dangerous? Why not just armed?

Click to expand...

You could be armed with a baseball bat but I do not think you are going to be much of a danger trying to swing it in the car.

Once you step out of the car holding you.. you are now both.

imported post

AbNo wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Mike wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Police may frisk a vehicle’s passenger compartment including unlocked containers if reasonable suspicion exists an occupant is armed and dangerous, Michigan v. Long (1983).

Click to expand...

"armed and dangerous" is a 2 part requirement, 229 - the facts in the poster's post above do not implicate any "dangerousness" at all.

Click to expand...

Is someone armed with a handgun not a possible danger?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that make every LEO on the beat a danger, per your own reasoning.

Sorry 229, but I'm not going to let that one slide.

Click to expand...

It's fine... run with what you got....

Any Joe Blow[around the]age of 18 can basically owna gun. Anyone that has not yet broken a criminal law can get a CC permit. And then.. even if you have violated the law... you can still get one.



Then you have a police officer with a gun......

Some requirements before this dangerous guy is set loose on the streets:

• Education GED, Diploma, Degree
• 21 years old
• US Citizen
• Criminal History Check
• Background investigation (Visiting all places lived for prior 10-20 years)
• Credit check
• Psych Exam (8 Hours)
• Polygraph Test
• Physical Skills Qualification
• Full Physical exam
• Selection Process
• Drug testing
• Six months training
• Firearms training and qualification annually
• Additional three months with training officer
• Supervised daily and citizen complaints addressed

So this cop that could rightfully bedangerous has been checked out throughly unlike some 18 years old who is unknown to anyone.

I hope this answers your question.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Wynder wrote:

Out of genuine curiosity, if your interpretation were the case, why is the condition armed AND dangerous? Why not just armed?

Click to expand...

You could be armed with a baseball bat but I do not think you are going to be much of a danger trying to swing it in the car.

Once you step out of the car holding you.. you are now both.

Click to expand...

Woot -- I get to use one of my Christmas Gifts:

Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition:

dangerous, adj: 1. (Of a condition, situation, etc.) perilious; hazardous; unsafe <a dangerous intersection>. 2. (Of a person, object, etc.) likely to cause serious bodily harm <a dangerous weapon> <a dangerous criminal>.

No definition for 'likely' in the law dictionary, but looking up Merriam-Webster:

like·ly: 1. having a high probability of occurring or being true :very probable <rain is likely today>

I'm making an attempt to remain neutral in analyzing this, but it would appear to me that dangerous wouldn't mean that the person simply has the ability to do something, but rather it would require a probable situation.

Disclaimer: IANASCJNDIPTPONTV.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

It's fine... run with what you got....

Any Joe Blow at the age of 18 can basically owna gun. Anyone that has not yet broken a criminal law can get a CC permit. And then.. even if you have violated the law... you can still get one.



Then you have a police officer with a gun......

Some requirements before this dangerous guy is set loose on the streets:

• Education GED, Diploma, Degree
• 21 years old
• US Citizen
• Criminal History Check
• Background investigation (Visiting all places lived for prior 10-20 years)
• Credit check
• Psych Exam (8 Hours)
• Polygraph Test
• Physical Skills Qualification
• Full Physical exam
• Selection Process
• Drug testing
• Six months training
• Firearms training and qualification annually
• Additional three months with training officer
• Supervised daily and citizen complaints addressed

So this cop that could rightfully bedangerous has been checked out throughly unlike some 18 years old who is unknown to anyone.

I hope this answers your question.

Click to expand...

You ought to rephrase that to any 18 year old who isn't in the armed forces or coast gaurd.... similiar requirements, only difference is age. Even then some 17 year olds goto bootcamp early....Though perhaps this course of discussion is best suited for a new thread.