How do you respond when pulled over?

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Manka Cat wrote:

SNIP If a cop is reasonable with me, I'll do everything I can to make his job easier, so long as that doesn't include voluntarily giving up any rights.

Click to expand...

Lets say we're talking about being stopped while CCing in a state that doesn't require notification.

Telling the officerone isarmed is voluntarily giving up a right--4th Amendment protections. Police may not search you for a weapon absent custodial arrest or reasonable suspicion that you are armed and dangerous. See Terry vs Ohio.Thus, the 4th Amendment protects you from the actions of an over-zealous or lack-judgment cop regarding your lawfully held firearm.

Click to expand...

The KEY word is VOLUNTARILY...

imported post

In a non-"must inform" juristiction.......

Telling an officer that you are legally and quite properly armed is about as necessary as telling him which way you voted in the last local or national election. I have no intention of harming the officer, why does he need to know that I'm responsible for my own self-defence?


I'd remain silent, just as I would/do when asked...

"You got any drugs in there?"
"If I searched your car, would I find anything?"
"You don't have anything to hide, do you?"
"You been drinkin' tonite, sir?"



Okay...confession time; on those occasions when I know there is going to be a roadblock (an locally they do it same place, same time, every year) I have gone out of my way to go thru the roadblock and cause just a tiny bit of controversy.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

SNIP Telling an officer I am armed is also not giving up a right.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. Its not a classicsituation of giving consent to a search, but its there nonetheless.

For the sake of discussion, lets leave out situations requiring search warrants and probable cause. And lets assume we're sufficiently familiar with settled 4th Amend. case law that we don't need to cite.

Remember that the 4th Amendment wasn't intended to protect illegal objects. Itsintended to protect law-abiding citizensand our legal property. It justhappens to protect illegal stuff at the same time, in a manner of speaking.

Consent legallyturns an unreasonable search into a reasonable one regardless of whether illegal or legal property is discovered. The matter hinges on the consent, not the legality orillegality of theitems discovered.

In a classsic case ofconsenting to a search, the policewould bestarting with no knowledge (or insufficient certainty) that an object exists in a certain location. Thus,they need your consentto search. That is to say, they need your consent to find out whether certain objects are present. Typically the focus is on illegal objects because generally that isall that is legally actionable; but remember, the 4th Amendment is intended to protectlegal objects from unreasonable searches and seizures, not illegal objects.

You could say, "I have 10 lbs of grass in the trunk." Or you could consent to a search and let them find it. Either way, you areallowing them reasonably aquired knowledge of its presence.Either way, you just removed the 4A protections. Grass is illegal;but thesame would hold true for legal property. Now that the officer knowsan objectis present, he can take whatever action he wants. And don't forget,you are well advised not to physically resist, and to comply with all commands.Its only after the incident that you get to fight back.

So, lets say its my gun. Its legally carried. Its legally concealed. It is protected by the 4th Amendment. If I reveal its presence, I am waivingits protection against unreasonable seizure by any over-zealous or lack-judgment cop. Iwaive my protection against: having it dropped on the pavement, having to wait while its serial number is checked in a fishing expedition, having to reassemble it and reload it after the police leave, and the other indignitiesagainst gun carriers reported on this forum.

I'm not criticizing your decision to notify an officer of the presence of your gun. I'm literally only discussing the waiving of a right against unreasonable search and seizure.

As for me, when I can figure out how to tell the good cops from the bad cops, I'll consider notifying. Until then, the only way I can tell one from the other is after it is too late.

imported post

Fallschirmjäger wrote:

SNIP I have no intention of harming the officer, why does he need to know that I'm responsible for my own self-defence?

Click to expand...

+1

This is the point that, in my opinion (as opposed to legally), makes notification unreasonable.

Law-abiding citizens are not, by definition, going to harm the officer. Bad guys aren't going to tell him its there. Especially if they are thinking of using it.

The only benefit from notifying, voluntarily or in compliance with a statute,is giving a nervous-nellie officer some peace of mind. And his momentary peace of mind in no way outweighs the protections afforded by the 4th Amendment. Or more importantly, the possible problems that professionally deficientcopscan cause.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Manka Cat wrote:

SNIP If a cop is reasonable with me, I'll do everything I can to make his job easier, so long as that doesn't include voluntarily giving up any rights.

Click to expand...

Lets say we're talking about being stopped while CCing in a state that doesn't require notification.

Telling the officerone isarmed is voluntarily giving up a right--4th Amendment protections. Police may not search you for a weapon absent custodial arrest or reasonable suspicion that you are armed and dangerous. See Terry vs Ohio.Thus, the 4th Amendment protects you from the actions of an over-zealous or lack-judgment cop regarding your lawfully held firearm.

Click to expand...

Telling someone you are armed does not mean you "give up" a damn thing. Once you have told them you are armed they may now have cause to check you for more weapons and that is it. They cannot search your pocket link for fragments of crack cocaine. You are still provided protections under the 4th amendment.

And a search for weapons outside an arrest can also happen in more situations than you know.

Stop and frisk is always an option outside the 4th amendment. There is nothing worse then a cop frisking you and finding that gun on his own. You may want to warn him ahead of time.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



The Right of the Police to Conduct A Stop and Frisk

A police officer may stop a person in order to question them if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is engaged in criminal activity. And for self-protection, the officer can at the same time carry out a limited pat-down search for weapons (a "frisk").
In two cases decided in the 2000 term, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the "stop and frisk" rule.

In one case, the Court ruled that running away from the police is enough of a reason for the police to stop and frisk the defendant.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP

The Right of the Police to Conduct A Stop and Frisk

A police officer may stop a person in order to question them if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is engaged in criminal activity. And for self-protection, the officer can at the same time carry out a limited pat-down search for weapons (a "frisk").
In two cases decided in the 2000 term, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the "stop and frisk" rule.

In one case, the Court ruled that running away from the police is enough of a reason for the police to stop and frisk the defendant.

Click to expand...

I'm willing to know the law. In fact I have an active desire to know the case law on this point.

Do you have a cite?

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP Telling someone you are armed does not mean you "give up" a damn thing.

Click to expand...

Sure it does. I just discussed this at greater length just a few posts above.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP Stop and frisk is always an option outside the 4th amendment.

Click to expand...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean that the way it sounds.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP There is nothing worse then a cop frisking you and finding that gun on his own.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the cop is now going to rough me up or do something other than treat me with respect and professionalism?

Understand that a "yes" answer totally justifiesmy point about theimportance of the 4th Amendment.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

SNIP Telling an officer I am armed is also not giving up a right.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. Its not a classicsituation of giving consent to a search, but its there nonetheless.

For the sake of discussion, lets leave out situations requiring search warrants and probable cause. And lets assume we're sufficiently familiar with settled 4th Amend. case law that we don't need to cite.

Remember that the 4th Amendment wasn't intended to protect illegal objects. Itsintended to protect law-abiding citizensand our legal property. It justhappens to protect illegal stuff at the same time, in a manner of speaking.

Consent legallyturns an unreasonable search into a reasonable one regardless of whether illegal or legal property is discovered. The matter hinges on the consent, not the legality orillegality of theitems discovered.

In a classsic case ofconsenting to a search, the policewould bestarting with no knowledge (or insufficient certainty) that an object exists in a certain location. Thus,they need your consentto search. That is to say, they need your consent to find out whether certain objects are present. Typically the focus is on illegal objects because generally that isall that is legally actionable; but remember, the 4th Amendment is intended to protectlegal objects from unreasonable searches and seizures, not illegal objects.

You could say, "I have 10 lbs of grass in the trunk." Or you could consent to a search and let them find it. Either way, you areallowing them reasonably aquired knowledge of its presence.Either way, you just removed the 4A protections. Grass is illegal;but thesame would hold true for legal property. Now that the officer knowsan objectis present, he can take whatever action he wants. And don't forget,you are well advised not to physically resist, and to comply with all commands.Its only after the incident that you get to fight back.

So, lets say its my gun. Its legally carried. Its legally concealed. It is protected by the 4th Amendment. If I reveal its presence, I am waivingits protection against unreasonable seizure by any over-zealous or lack-judgment cop. Iwaive my protection against: having it dropped on the pavement, having to wait while its serial number is checked in a fishing expedition, having to reassemble it and reload it after the police leave, and the other indignitiesagainst gun carriers reported on this forum.

I'm not criticizing your decision to notify an officer of the presence of your gun. I'm literally only discussing the waiving of a right against unreasonable search and seizure.

As for me, when I can figure out how to tell the good cops from the bad cops, I'll consider notifying. Until then, the only way I can tell one from the other is after it is too late.

Click to expand...

No! Consent does not legallyturn an unreasonable search into a reasonable one.

How is it unreasonable if I ask and permission is granted by the person being searched? The person can simply say no. If I force the search and have nothing to base it on.. THIS is unreasonable.

This is why it is called a voluntary search. Geezz!!! :banghead:



The seizure (temporary removal)of the gun can be done if the officer deems you to be a possible threat and could cause him harm. You would not or should not be stopped in the first place unless you are suspected of some type of wrong doing.

Now you want to give other justification for your reluctance in that "It could be dropped on the pavement", "The SN could be ran", "It could be unloaded", "It could be disassembled"

Then you top it off with... "I can figure out how to tell the good cops from the bad cops."

Guess what!! The cops cannot tell the good people from the bad people either.


Keep working it... your not getting anywhere.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP No! Consent does not legallyturn an unreasonable search into a reasonable one.

How is it unreasonable if I ask and permission is granted by the person being searched? The person can simply say no. If I force the search and have nothing to base it on.. THIS is unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Take a deep breath, 229.

Its implicit that the consent is being grantedafter anasking. Thus you are right, there is nothing unreasonable in aconsensual search. Which is all I was saying.

Its getting pretty bad when we're both arguing about the same thing.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP You would not or should not be stopped in the first place unless you are suspected of some type of wrong doing.

Click to expand...

You understand that the context is a traffic stop, right?Check the OP and my early quotes and posts.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP Then you top it off with... "I can figure out how to tell the good cops from the bad cops."

Guess what!! The cops cannot tell the good people from the bad people either.

Click to expand...

I'll go along with that.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect law-abiding citizens. Not criminals, and certainly not government agents.

I'm sorry. Police are due protection on the job. However, I very much approve of the 4th Amendment case law tems: "particularized suspicion,""articulable facts," and "reasonable suspicion."

Sorry I can't chat longer. I'll have to get back with you another time.

I really would like the cite I asked about above.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

FightingGlock19 wrote:

in the last three encounters I've had with law enforcement (at a d.o.t. scale, changing a flat tire, and an accident scene), I've not informedthe officersI was carrying.

Click to expand...

I think those situations are different than the OP question. I've had several casual interactions with LEOs while armed and haven't said anything about carrying. I think that is different than a traffic stop. For one, my understanding is that traffic stops are one of the most dangerous parts of most LEO's job. Understandably then, the LEOs are going to be on high alert already and something innocuous to you, may appear very threatening to the officer especially if you have a firearm.

Click to expand...

the first encounter I listed happened at a TN scale (TN State Troopers)in which I was trying to explain my drive axles being over (I was gonna get a ticket, but explained my way out of it). Anyways ...

As far as telling an officer if I'm armed, or not, I go with the not (unless required by law). The only answer I give during a traffic stop in regards to being asked if I have any guns in the vehicle is, "no sir, I don't have anything illegal in my vehicle."

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP The Right of the Police to Conduct A Stop and Frisk

A police officer may stop a person in order to question them if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is engaged in criminal activity. And for self-protection, the officer can at the same time carry out a limited pat-down search for weapons (a "frisk").
In two cases decided in the 2000 term, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the "stop and frisk" rule.

In one case, the Court ruled that running away from the police is enough of a reason for the police to stop and frisk the defendant.

Click to expand...

Oh, my. LEO229. I'm a little disappointed. I found yourtext on the website of a San Diego criminal attorney.http://tinyurl.com/2pkllu Actually the website text is a little different than what you posted. Did you edit it, or did you get your post from another source?

The Right of the Police to Conduct A Stop and Frisk

A police officer may stop a person in order to question them if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is engaged in criminal activity. And for self-protection, the officer can at the same time carry out a limited pat-down search for weapons (a "frisk").

In two cases decided in the 2000 term, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the "stop and frisk" rule. In one case, the Court ruled that running away from the police is enough of a reason for the police to stop and frisk the defendant. In another case the Court ruled that an anonymous tip that a suspect might be armed was insufficient justification for the police to conduct stop and frisk, absent other facts demonstrating the reliability of the tip. (Florida v. J.L, No. 98-1993 (March 28, 2000). )


Here is more that I found when I went looking:


1. Florida vs JL does not involvean automaticsearchfor weapons during a detention. In fact, it involvesthe case of a minor being arrested on an anonymous tip of carrying a gun. TheSupreme Courtdecidedthat an anonymous tip lacking certainindicators of reliabilitydoes not justify a stop and frisk whenever and however it alleges the illegal possession of a firearm. In fact, they were careful, in the sentence just before the holding,to preserve Terry, which they partially quote in section II, "...and that the persons with whom he [police officer] is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous,..." http://tinyurl.com/yqubd6

2. The only other case I see from 2000 on Cornell's website involving running away is Illinois vs Wardlow. In this case the Supreme Court reversed the Illinois Supreme Court that had found that sudden flight in ahigh crime area was not sufficient reason to justify a Terry stop. The Supreme Court said it was. The case discusses the flight aspect at length. Inthis case thepolice officer patted downWardlow because in his experience it was common for weapons to be in the near vicinity of drug transactions, not automatically.There is nothing in this case authorizing the automatic pat down of all detainees. The Supreme Court doesn't explicitly address it, I'm guessing, because it was not the question before the court. They allude to this near thevery end. http://tinyurl.com/2xyhs7


Maybe the attorneys left out the words, "under certain circumstances" before "..the officer can at the same time carry out a limited pat-down search.."?


Now, I'm kicking myself a little bit, LEO229, for being thrown off by your posting aseeming representation that a police officer may automatically pat down a detainee. Here is a source that might help clear this up a little bit. I'm kicking myself because I had already read this some time ago: http://tinyurl.com/yofhgg. From Police Chief Magazine:

Enforcement Guidelines
Where a police officer receives a report that a person is in possession of a firearm, but the weapon is not visible to the officer, the following options are available:

• Engage in a voluntary contact and simply ask the person if he or she has a firearm.
  
• If he or she confirms he or she is in possession of a gun, the officer may ask the person to voluntarily hand it over just while the interview takes place, or insist that they hand it over if there is a reasonable belief that the safety of the officer or public is in jeopardy, or that the person has used it in a crime or is about to do so.
  
• If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, and the officer does not otherwise have (legally sufficient) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer must allow the person to continue on his or her way.
  
• If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, but the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and presents a danger to the officer or public, the officer may conduct a stop and frisk the person. If the officer finds a weapon, the officer may hold it while conducting the field inquiry. As long as the person is properly licensed, and no arrest takes place, the officer must return the gun at the conclusion of the interview. (emphasis Citizen's)

Do you have acourt opinion that clearly indicates a police officer may automatically pat down for weapons all detainees? So far everything I've seen involves reasonable suspicion that the detainee is both "armed" and "dangerous."

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Do you have acourt opinion that clearly indicates a police officer may automatically pat down for weapons all detainees? So far everything I've seen involves reasonable suspicion that the detainee is both "armed" and "dangerous."

Click to expand...

Thank you, that makes my point very well. Telling the officer that I am armed and have a CCW in your above posited situation only gives evidence that I am armed, but the CCW is prima facie evidence that I am not dangerous, plus the fact that I volunteered the information to prevent a misunderstanding if the weapon is later detected, is further evidence of the fact that I am not dangerous. Therefore, by the information you posted above, this does NOT in effect cause me to give up any rights and my 4th amendment rights remain intact unless something makes me appear "dangerous". If I have a firearm and do not notify the LEO and he then detects its presence by some means (printing, glint, etc) I think it more likely that he would then deem me dangerous and seize the weapon than if I volunteer the information and my CCW license.

Again, there are places where I would not volunteer the fact of my possessing a firearm due to information I have found at this forum and others as to a generally poor attitude by LEO towards legal carry of firearms. (For those of you traveling through the St Louis metro area, I would consider it one of those places). While I have had my fair share of experiences over the years with jerk LEOs, I have found that most are decent human beings, doing an often difficult job and just wanting to go home to their families at the end of the day. While I have learned a lot about my rights on this forum and others, and I will not hesitate in the future to assert those rights and call BS when an LEO threatens me unlawfully (which happened before but I did not know my rights well enough then to assert them and call BS), I also do not generally see LEOs in an adversarial light. The more I carry OC and CC and have interactions with LE while doing so, the more I find that most LEOs are not against us and that I am capable of calmly and rataionly asserting my rights in a clear, concise and polite manner that leads to an acceptable, if not positive, outcome. Those experiences I know are not universal.

imported post

Lets not also forget about the mobile conveyance exemption for warrantless searches.

With reasonable, articulable suspicion, a 'terry stop and frisk' can be affected on the driver,and IMMEDIATE AREAS ACCESSIBLE TO THE DRIVER THAT MAY CONTAIN A WEAPON.

Straight from FLETC, (Audio Link). Keep in mind that state laws CAN be more restrictive. WA for example has determined that pretext stops are a violation of the state constitution, and are unlawful.

In case you want to hear more, FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) has more audio files, and transcripts, of important constitutional issues..

http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts

imported post

IN OHIO,the first thingWE HAVEto say when a officer approaches on a traffic stop, is " Officer I am a permit/chl holder and I am armed"... no ands if or but's.

We have a must inform clause in Ohio, if asked for ID then must inform, a traffic stop is a must inform, but walking up to and askinga cop directions on a street corner would not be.

If we are unarmed we do not have to notfiy but it is suggested and urged we courtesly inform we have a permit but are unarmed, because it comes up on our plate info.

Joe in Cincinnati---


Favorite recent Quote:
"As long as I'm prosecutor, if someone comes into a store with a gun – and I've said it before and I'll say it again – they have forfeited their right not to be shot,"
Hamilton County, Ohio - prosecutor; Joe Deters

imported post

In Utah you must inform the officer that you are armed also.



My wallet is arranged so that when I open it to show my DL, my CFP is visible also. This has always led the officer to ask if I'm carrying without me having to just blurt it out there. Thus far it's proven to be an effective & polite way to deal with the situation.



Also comes in handy when the bank & such asks for 2 forms of ID because Utah's CFP is considered a valid photo ID card. So I just flip the wallet open & have both ID's at the ready.

imported post

Mr. Magnum wrote:

In Utah you must inform the officer that you are armed also.



My wallet is arranged so that when I open it to show my DL, my CFP is visible also. This has always led the officer to ask if I'm carrying without me having to just blurt it out there. Thus far it's proven to be an effective & polite way to deal with the situation.



Also comes in handy when the bank & such asks for 2 forms of ID because Utah's CFP is considered a valid photo ID card. So I just flip the wallet open & have both ID's at the ready.

Click to expand...

I similarly have a business card/credit card wallet in which I carry my license and state id card with CCW endorsement and both are similarly visible. I am very careful though as to whom I show my concealed carry document. The woman at the grocery store doesn't need to know I have a CCW just because I want to cash a check. I use different ID.

Of a bigger concern to me, simply because I face it every few months, is driving somewhere that I cannot carry my firearm in the vehicle. I have to go to Illinois every few months. I don't always know when I am going and I don't always have gun cases with me or any other lockable case with me to meet IL statutes for transportation. The last thing I want to provid to an IL LEO is information that I have a CCW, own a gun, held a gun, saw a gun in a magazine or even know what a firearm is, no sir I go to work at the testical shrinking clinic all day and then cry my way home to watch reruns of Oprah and Dr. Phil until bed just like you. Right or wrong, they have a reputation for causing hassles, including vehicle searches for adjacent state CCW holders if they pull you over. If I am going through IL I flip over the CCW permit so that it isn't visible in my wallet. I don't want to be dealing with an IL LEO who thinks that my CCW is probable cause to search my vehicle as has been claimed to have happened on several occasions.