Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Got pulled over by the UHP the other day...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    West Valley City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    I was speeding a little and got pulled over, ooops. I had my XD45 locked (two padlocks on the handle)securely inside the case it came in, with the magazine lock (the one that comes with the gun also)in place too. I had some rounds in one of the magazines (left over from the last time I took it out shooting), they too were in the case, but not in the gun obviously. The gun was on the front passenger seats floorboard in plain sight. Inside the glovebox was my BH SERPA holster.

    So the LEO walks up to my window and asks me the usual questions. He then asked me to get my drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance. He sees the holster and proceeds to ask me if I had a gun (he didn't notice it on the floorboard I guess). He then asked if I had a CFP to which I replied not yet. I got a bit nervouswhen he said I had a "concealed" gun in the carwith me. I took it like he was insinuating I was breaking the law and did the best to correct him. From the BCI website it says:


    It is lawful to carry a firearm in a vehicle without a permit if: the firearm is unloaded; securely encased (not including a glove box or console box) and is not readily accessible for immediate use.


    Was he using the incorrect terminology when describing how I was transporting my weapon? I got on the defensive a little and said I wasn't concealing the gun, as it was in open view on the floorboard, in a secured case, with about 6 or 7 actions needed to fire it!!! He back-peddled a little and said it was concealed INSIDE the case, but that I was OK. He then admonished me a little for not notifying him I had it right away. He also suggested I put it either on the backseat or in the trunk as well. I apologized for that, but he really didn't give me a chance to...From the time I opened the window to the time the gun discussion ended, he had been doing all the talking and I could only get out the replies. Of course I know now to politely interject that I am legally transporting my weapon BEFORE I answer any questions. So it was my bad mostly.


    In the end though, we started talking about private citizens carrying their weapons and he was really all for it. He actually said he wished more people would get their CFPs! The only negative comment he made was the typical, once you get your CFP make sure to conceal it!!! My impression from that exchange was he wasn't keen on OCing! Protecting our rights to OC and dealing with LE is (IMHO) going to be a never-ending battle. I think the logic is flawed, since the bottom line whether I OC or CC, I have a FREAKING gun on my person!!!

    I'm going to pose this ideato the any person so they can ponder it (if I ever encounter this in public) and ask them wouldthey feel safer in a store with all the "gun" people carrying openly OR having to wonder which one out of all thepeople concealing a gun(which of course, they'llhave no clue who they are)is a bad guy, because the good guys with holstered guns areNOT a threat (or the problem)!



  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    SlimsBFG wrote:
    [snip]

    Was he using the incorrect terminology when describing how I was transporting my weapon? I got on the defensive a little and said I wasn't concealing the gun, as it was in open view on the floorboard, in a secured case, with about 6 or 7 actions needed to fire it!!! He back-peddled a little and said it was concealed INSIDE the case, but that I was OK. He then admonished me a little for not notifying him I had it right away. He also suggested I put it either on the backseat or in the trunk as well. I apologized for that, but he really didn't give me a chance to...From the time I opened the window to the time the gun discsussion ended, he had been doing all the talking and I could only get out the replies. Of course I know now to politely interject that I am legally transporting my weapon BEFORE I answer any questions. So it was my bad mostly.

    [snip]
    That's bull, the only people that have to notify are those with permits... Without a permit, I don't have to say anything about it!

    Thanks for sharing, and I hope we can educate more police departments on the legality of OC.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    SlimsBFG wrote:
    Was he using the incorrect terminology when describing how I was transporting my weapon?
    Yes. He was wrong in multiple ways.

    First, Utah law states that an unloaded and securely encased firearm is not a concealed dangerous weapon. 76-10-501(2)(b) says:

    A dangerous weapon shall not be considered a concealed dangerous weapon if it is a firearm which is unloaded and is securely encased.

    Also, you could have had a full magazine in the gun, and it would still have been legal, since the definition of "unloaded" is the normal one in Utah law(no round in firing position and two actions from firing).

    Second, you didn't have to tell him anything about the gun. There is a state regulation that requires CFP holders to inform law enforcement officers when they're carrying concealed. You don't have a CFP and weren't concealing a weapon, so you had no such obligation.

    It might not be a bad idea to let them know, though, just to be polite.

    Third, you do not need to put it in the back seat or in the trunk.
    Even if the case weren't locked at all, just snapped shut, it would qualify as securely encased as defined in 76-10-501(18)

    Securely encased" means not readily accessible for immediate use, such as held in a gun rack, or in a closed case or container, whether or not locked, or in a trunk or other storage area of a motor vehicle, not including a glove box or console box

    Before I got my CFP, I often put my gun in a small "gunvault"-style safe, on the passenger seat next to me. I kept the magazine full and the chamber empty. I was about three seconds away from having a usable firearm, but it was perfectly legal in Utah. All I had to do was work the combination, which I can do one-handed and without looking, grab the gun and rack the slide. I actually exceeded the requirements of the law, since my gun was locked up.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Orem, Utah, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    You can have an unloaded gun into a gun case locked and under you seat and it isn't considered concealed from my understanding of the law. It is not "readily accessible" because it is locked away. You have to pull it out, unlock and load it to make it ready for use. I have my XD under the passanger's seat of my wife's car locked away in the XD case it came with right now (at my uncle's house and they didn't want it in the house). So yeah, that trooper is completely wrong.

    Where were you driving when this happened. Trying to see what office to write to.
    Charles A. Hall, self-proclaimed Lone Eagle || Carry: Kahr CW40
    Lone Eagle Observer (http://www.charlesahall.us)
    Facebook Page || http://twitter.com/CharlesAHall

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Outsider wrote:
    You can have an unloaded gun into a gun case locked and under you seat and it isn't considered concealed from my understanding of the law.
    By my reading of the law, it doesn't even have to be under the seat. Put the closed (not necessarily locked) container on the seat next to you and you're fine.

    If you enter a school zone, though, be aware that the case DOES have to be locked (though it can still be on the seat and have the key in it) and the gun has to be completely unloaded -- the magazine has to be out of the mag well. Locked up and fully unloaded will protect you from the Federal Gun Free School Zone act.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    If you enter a school zone, though, be aware that the case DOES have to be locked (though it can still be on the seat and have the key in it) and the gun has to be completely unloaded -- the magazine has to be out of the mag well. Locked up and fully unloaded will protect you from the Federal Gun Free School Zone act.
    That's the first I heard of that one... I looked it up and sure enough (!!!!!!!!!!!).

    Anyway, YIKES. My daily commute here in Vegas takes me thru 2 school zones, possibly 3 if I take a detour to avoid traffic. There are noted exceptions:
    Code:
     (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
    interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school
    zone. 
    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm— 
    (i) on private property not part of school grounds; 
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a
    political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an
    individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify 
    that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
    REPEAT: YIKES!! Talk about the dangers of gun laws, here's another way to criminalize the innocent activities of a law-abiding citizen while doing nothing to stop gun violence. I think this reinforces the rule "DON'T TALK TO POLICE". I certainly don't advocate doing anything illegal, but I consider myself well-versed on gun laws here in Nevada, and I had NO IDEA this federal school thing existed! So while I might think I'm completely innocent, were I ever in that position and chose to answer police questions, I might incriminate myself. What good does that do anyone?

    Thankfully, I do have a concealed weapon permit so I won't have to alter my commute route.

    Anyway, I think Subparagraph (B)(ii) is open to interpretation. In my mind, license does not necessarily have to refer to a physical document I have in my possession. Wouldn't the normal Brady check at any gun purchase qualify? I am "licensed" in that I am permitted to purchase the gun after the state's law enforcement authority verifies I have no disqualifying factors. If it's not a license, what is it? Yea, I admit it's an extreme interpretation, but I think a reasonable defense would be that the person who purchased the weapon legally could not have done so if they weren't qualified, which seems to be what this subparagraph really means.

    I am happy that the encounter reported by OP was for the most part uneventful. But had he chosen instead to remain silent, would the presence of a holster been reasonable cause to conduct a search?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    timf343 wrote:
    Anyway, I think Subparagraph (B)(ii) is open to interpretation.
    Another point of interpretation is whether or not possession of another state's permit qualifies you. Suppose, for example, that I go to Nevada with my Utah CFP and enter a school zone, armed. Since the law says that the individual must be licensed by the State in which the school zone is located, am I legal? It could be argued that I was licensed by Utah, not Nevada. Nevada chooses to recognize my permit and therefore will not prosecute me for carrying concealed, but Nevada hasn't taken any action to license me -- no paperwork, no background checks, no ID card, nothing.

    On the other hand, it could be argued that by choosing to accept Utah's CFP as valid, Nevada has implicitly licensed all Utah CFP holders.

    No one knows how this would play out in court.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    It's a shame law-abiding citizens with no criminal intent must fear prosecution under ambiguous laws intended to protect them. Until all crime is eliminated, Congress passes understandable laws, hell freezes over, and you understand every law you're expected to obey, I strongly suggest you not speak a single word to any law enforcement.

    No explanation, no opinion, no apology.

    Just "I do not answer questions from the police."

    Your justification if you choose to explain yourself? Since ignorance of the law is "no excuse", and since there are tens of thousands of laws you're expected to obey, I would suggest it's next to impossible FOR ANYONE to know whether their seemingly innocent activity is criminal. Refusing to answer questions is because you are allowed not to incriminate yourself and since you're not familiar with several thousand of the laws, you cannot be assured any questions you answer won't necessarily incriminate you under a law of which you have no knowledge.

    Absent extenuating circumstances, neither a traffic stop nor refusal to answer questions warrants an escalation by police, including vehicle search, etc. Don't risk making your situation worse by consenting to anything because "you have nothing to hide".

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    timf343 wrote:
    Just "I do not answer questions from the police."
    Except those you're legally obligated to answer.

    In some states there is a legal obligation to provide reasonable assistance to police officers who are performing their duties. If you're the suspect the fifth amendment kicks in and you have no obligation to do anything, but if you're not you may have an obligation to assist.

    Also, many states (including Nevada) have "Stop & Identify" laws, which compel you to identify yourself. Verbally providing name and home address is sufficient.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    West Valley City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    Outsider wrote:
    Where were you driving when this happened. Trying to see what office to write to.
    UHP in Draper...

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    timf343 wrote:
    Just "I do not answer questions from the police."
    Except those you're legally obligated to answer.

    In some states there is a legal obligation to provide reasonable assistance to police officers who are performing their duties. If you're the suspect the fifth amendment kicks in and you have no obligation to do anything, but if you're not you may have an obligation to assist.

    Also, many states (including Nevada) have "Stop & Identify" laws, which compel you to identify yourself. Verbally providing name and home address is sufficient.
    I know about the stop and ID law and will fully comply with their request for my ID. I am vaguely familiar with the exception being that cops can't stop just anyone, but must have some reason to believe a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is imminent. In fact, I do not believe I am even required to show ID, only identify myself by name, and the police may detain me only long enough to verify I have no warrants. I'm not going to argue with them, but if they're investigating a crime for which I am not a suspect, they may not legally require me to ID myself under this statute.

    I strongly disagree that the 5th amendment only kicks in when you are a suspect in a crime. Someone "assisting" the police in the investigation of crime for which they are not a suspect may inadvertently incriminate themselves in a different crime.

    I will comply with answering questions I know I am obligated by law to answer, but I may be unaware of any legal obligation to answer, and since the police are not required to tell me the truth, what is the alternative. Insisting on having my attorney present, even to answer "required" questions, may seem extreme.....and I'm definitely open to suggestions on how someone might protect his rights while also obeying a law requiring he answer a question.

    Tim

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    timf343 wrote:
    In fact, I do not believe I am even required to show ID, only identify myself by name, and the police may detain me only long enough to verify I have no warrants. I'm not going to argue with them, but if they're investigating a crime for which I am not a suspect, they may not legally require me to ID myself under this statute.
    This is correct, as I understand the law.

    I strongly disagree that the 5th amendment only kicks in when you are a suspect in a crime. Someone "assisting" the police in the investigation of crime for which they are not a suspect may inadvertently incriminate themselves in a different crime.
    Nevertheless it's true that some states have laws requiring you to assist officers, and you can be arrested and cited for failing to do so. In theory, if you indicate to the officers that you are only assisting them because of the legal requirement to do so and that otherwise you would refuse to give them any information at all, any self-incrimination will be inadmissible, as well as any evidence that is derived from the self-incrimination (fruit of the poisoned tree).

    I may be unaware of any legal obligation to answer, and since the police are not required to tell me the truth, what is the alternative.
    Ignorance of the law isn't a valid defense (except for the police, apparently), so honestly I think your best bet is to try to refuse the encounter entirely, and if they don't let you make it very clear that you are complying with their requests against your own will, but comply. If they overstep their authority, file a complaint (or a lawsuit) afterwards. If they try to use anything you said against them, get your lawyer to get all of it thrown out.

    It sucks but I think it's the best you can do.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    SlimsBFG wrote:


    It is lawful to carry a firearm in a vehicle without a permit if: the firearm is unloaded; securely encased (not including a glove box or console box) and is not readily accessible for immediate use.



    He was using common, rather than legal terminology. The gun is out of sight, but NOT legally defined as concealed if it is unloaded and securely cased.

    As a permit holder, I am required to inform when I am carrying a concealed gun. As a practical matter, I am now likely to inform regardless of whether I have a legally defined concealed gun or not. I figure easier to explain I don't have a gun with me (it MIGHT happen, somehow) right up front than try to explain to a nervous and upset cop who has discovered my CWP while running my license that I don't actually have a gun with me (or that the gun securely cased under my seat is not actually concealed) and therefore I don't have to inform.

    However, prior to having a permit, your experience is exactly why I tended to keep my guns LEGALLY out of sight. Slide that case under your seat and you have no obligation to inform AND odds of a police officer discovering it during a routine traffic stop are pretty slim.

    And of course, the 5th amendment protects you against self incrimination while committing a crime such as illegally having a loaded and/or concealed gun in your car. Of course, we would never do such a thing on purpose, but if you found yourself taking a wrong turn and driving into a hostile jurisdiction (mostly a problem on the east coast), you may want to keep your mouth shut while you get back to the USA.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    That's bull, the only people that have to notify are those with permits... Without a permit, I don't have to say anything about it! Thanks for sharing, and I hope we can educate more police departments on the legality of OC.

    True, but I would still tell the officer you have it. Puts most of them at ease that you are willing to be open about what you are doing.

    Think about if you were an officer approaching a vehicle and you didn't know the occupant (even if you're just a citizen, worse for officers who deal with thugs on a daily basis). Wouldn't you want to know that person has a weapon so you could "keep a look out"?

    I'm just saying, don't jump down the throat of an officer when he tells you that he would have liked to know FROM YOUR MOUTH that you had a gun in the car.

  15. #15
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    timf343 wrote:
    In fact, I do not believe I am even required to show ID, only identify myself by name, and the police may detain me only long enough to verify I have no warrants. I'm not going to argue with them, but if they're investigating a crime for which I am not a suspect, they may not legally require me to ID myself under this statute.
    This is correct, as I understand the law.

    I strongly disagree that the 5th amendment only kicks in when you are a suspect in a crime. Someone "assisting" the police in the investigation of crime for which they are not a suspect may inadvertently incriminate themselves in a different crime.
    Nevertheless it's true that some states have laws requiring you to assist officers, and you can be arrested and cited for failing to do so. In theory, if you indicate to the officers that you are only assisting them because of the legal requirement to do so and that otherwise you would refuse to give them any information at all, any self-incrimination will be inadmissible, as well as any evidence that is derived from the self-incrimination (fruit of the poisoned tree).

    I may be unaware of any legal obligation to answer, and since the police are not required to tell me the truth, what is the alternative.
    Ignorance of the law isn't a valid defense (except for the police, apparently), so honestly I think your best bet is to try to refuse the encounter entirely, and if they don't let you make it very clear that you are complying with their requests against your own will, but comply. If they overstep their authority, file a complaint (or a lawsuit) afterwards. If they try to use anything you said against them, get your lawyer to get all of it thrown out.

    It sucks but I think it's the best you can do.
    BUT--

    We are required by law to have our "driving priviledge card" immediately availalble any time we are driving!

    It isn't enforced very often but you could be cited!

    Just my 2 bits...

    JoeSparky
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    SlimsBFG wrote:
    Outsider wrote:
    Where were you driving when this happened. Trying to see what office to write to.
    UHP in Draper...
    for salt lake county these are your guys

    [size=3][font="Times New Roman"]
    Department of Public Safety UT Hwy Patrol Headquarters: 801-965-4518

    Colonel Lance Davenport

    Major Kathy Slagowski

    Major Terry McKinnon

    Captain Doug McCleve



    Calvin Rampton Building

    1st Floor South

    4501 S 2700 W

    Salt Lake City, UT 84114

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Okay, so: im gonna do a little more "New-guy" dumb statements...

    Is it just me, or is it the LEOs that create the issues for citizens to exercise the right to OC? I mean, you dont see threads abuot OCers getting harrassed by civilians. i mean, geez: you would THIINK the LEOs would be more organized...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    swillden wrote:
    timf343 wrote:
    In fact, I do not believe I am even required to show ID, only identify myself by name, and the police may detain me only long enough to verify I have no warrants. I'm not going to argue with them, but if they're investigating a crime for which I am not a suspect, they may not legally require me to ID myself under this statute.
    This is correct, as I understand the law.
    We are required by law to have our "driving privilege card" immediately available any time we are driving!
    Yes, but that's a separate issue. Any time you're operating a motor vehicle on public roads, a police officer can demand that you show proof that you're authorized to do so, and that proof is your DL. It's also an identity card, but the officer isn't demanding your identity, he's demanding proof of permission to drive.

    The authority of an officer to demand your identity is separate from that, and applies whether you are driving or not. You do not, however, have to produce an identity card to fulfill this demand. You just need to tell him your name and address.

    This may seem like splitting hairs, but I think it's an issue worth understanding.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    scorpioajr wrote:
    Okay, so: im gonna do a little more "New-guy" dumb statements...

    Is it just me, or is it the LEOs that create the issues for citizens to exercise the right to OC? I mean, you dont see threads abuot OCers getting harrassed by civilians. i mean, geez: you would THIINK the LEOs would be more organized...

    I would say that we do get harassed by the every day citizen, but it may not seem that way because they dont seem to think they know that law the way LEO's seem to think they know the law better than you.


    Like yesterdayI was with a friend in WY at a store talking to a 17yo girl friend of his that was working there. She finally noticed my gun and very loud in a small store she says "Why do you have a gun?!", and everyone looked..... Before I got my answer out my friend said "cuse hes a bad ass", . I just told her for self defence, and by WY law she too, if she wanted to, could carry open and loaded, and that was it. I would say if she were against guns or thought she knew thelaw better than me, she would have argued.

    But in this case by the UHP ofcourse thecop is always going toknow better than you and if you try and tell him other wise and tell him the law, he gets defencive because only he should know the law better than you. Generally this would be the kind of response from an officer that most everyone would get, unless hes open mined (not), or really does know the law and his limmitations.

    So I would say citizens do harass some of us, but mostly in curiosity, and when you tell them the law they dont know, they probably see that you have done your homework and just say "oh ok"


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    I do not trust any LEO, especially the UHP. In my personal experience the UHP will say anything, and do anything, legal or not especially when they have you alone on the side of the highway (this includes threats to strip search your family) with the dash camera off. If youattempt to file a complaint with the sargent they say, "Go ahead. If your complaint is valid we will offer additional training to the officers."

    I have a relative with black skin, and California license plates. You want to see harassment.... Don't get me started. I'd never pull the race card, but believe me the UHP is the king ofunjustified profiling.... Even if it is a well dressed black man with his family in the car.

    The power of the UHP is out of control. I would honestly trust a convicted felon equally with a UHP officer. I know this sounds harsh, but a close friend of mine deeply in the UHP organization told me once, "There are a lot of criminals in Utah and most of them are carrying badges."

    Be careful out there. Learn your rights, learn the law, and obey the law.

    Edit: I want to add that prior to being harassed by the UHPmysmallbusiness donatedannually to the UHPA, and the UPOA. Its amazing how a few bad experiences can totally change your outlook on law enforcement.


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    combatcarry wrote:
    I do not trust any LEO, especially the UHP. In my personal experience the UHP will say anything, and do anything, legal or not especially when they have you alone on the side of the highway (this includes threats to strip search your family) with the dash camera off. If youattempt to file a complaint with the sargent they say, "Go ahead. If your complaint is valid we will offer additional training to the officers."
    Holy Crap - :what: Ok: so if this is even anywhere CLOSE to being remotley true.. im gonna puke...

    Did they never release "V for Vendetta" in Utah? yea...get on the ball ppl.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    I assure you what I said happened. The attorney general became involved because of so many complaints.

    This happened at a selective road block. The UHP formerly hid in bushes with a trash can in the middle of the road that said "Deposit Contraband Here". They would observe people, while hiding, as they drove by. They claimedmy wifethrew a bag of marijuanna out of the car. I insisted that they take us to jail, and present their evidence on the marijuanna before a judge, because they were lying.We bothoffered to give a blood test immediately at the hospital. They refused and searched our car in the "middle" (not on the side) of a deserted roadway. Myself and my wife have never even been in the presence of someone smoking marijuanna, let alone partook of it.

    Selective road blocks are now illegal in Utah (thank God, and Mr. Shurtliff).

    To be fair to the officer I will quote exactly what he said. He told me (alonein the middle of nowhere in the presence of another male officer) with his dash camera off, "Sir, you are lucky that we aren't going to strip search her." They also asked if she was "my wife,my girlfriend, or my mistress" I consider my wife fairly attractive, so I'm convinced they were a couple of perverts. At the time we were in our early 20s.

    The quote from the sargent ("Go ahead. If your complaint is valid we will offer additional training to the officers") is word for word to the best of my memory.

    How would this make you feel about our friends in uniform? It was a wake up call for me. This only happened about 8 years ago, so I would bet itis still happening today. I still see these two officers around town.



  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    SlimsBFG wrote:
    ....My impression from that exchange was he wasn't keen on OCing! Protecting our rights to OC and dealing with LE is (IMHO) going to be a never-ending battle.....
    ....
    Attached Images Attached Images

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    combatcarry wrote:
    I assure you what I said happened. The attorney general became involved because of so many complaints.

    This happened at a selective road block. The UHP formerly hid in bushes with a trash can in the middle of the road that said "Deposit Contraband Here". They would observe people, while hiding, as they drove by. They claimedmy wifethrew a bag of marijuanna out of the car. I insisted that they take us to jail, and present their evidence on the marijuanna before a judge, because they were lying.We bothoffered to give a blood test immediately at the hospital. They refused and searched our car in the "middle" (not on the side) of a deserted roadway. Myself and my wife have never even been in the presence of someone smoking marijuanna, let alone partook of it.

    Selective road blocks are now illegal in Utah (thank God, and Mr. Shurtliff).

    To be fair to the officer I will quote exactly what he said. He told me (alonein the middle of nowhere in the presence of another male officer) with his dash camera off, "Sir, you are lucky that we aren't going to strip search her." They also asked if she was "my wife,my girlfriend, or my mistress" I consider my wife fairly attractive, so I'm convinced they were a couple of perverts. At the time we were in our early 20s.

    The quote from the sargent ("Go ahead. If your complaint is valid we will offer additional training to the officers") is word for word to the best of my memory.

    How would this make you feel about our friends in uniform? It was a wake up call for me. This only happened about 8 years ago, so I would bet itis still happening today. I still see these two officers around town.

    IF this is true, way wrong.


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    combatcarry wrote:
    I assure you what I said happened. The attorney general became involved because of so many complaints.

    This happened at a selective road block. The UHP formerly hid in bushes with a trash can in the middle of the road that said "Deposit Contraband Here". They would observe people, while hiding, as they drove by. They claimedmy wifethrew a bag of marijuanna out of the car. I insisted that they take us to jail, and present their evidence on the marijuanna before a judge, because they were lying.We bothoffered to give a blood test immediately at the hospital. They refused and searched our car in the "middle" (not on the side) of a deserted roadway. Myself and my wife have never even been in the presence of someone smoking marijuanna, let alone partook of it.

    Selective road blocks are now illegal in Utah (thank God, and Mr. Shurtliff).

    To be fair to the officer I will quote exactly what he said. He told me (alonein the middle of nowhere in the presence of another male officer) with his dash camera off, "Sir, you are lucky that we aren't going to strip search her." They also asked if she was "my wife,my girlfriend, or my mistress" I consider my wife fairly attractive, so I'm convinced they were a couple of perverts. At the time we were in our early 20s.

    The quote from the sargent ("Go ahead. If your complaint is valid we will offer additional training to the officers") is word for word to the best of my memory.

    How would this make you feel about our friends in uniform? It was a wake up call for me. This only happened about 8 years ago, so I would bet itis still happening today. I still see these two officers around town.

    IF this is true, way wrong.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •