1st LEO encounter with OC/Digital recorder/CWP

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

SNIP [arguing with Citizen in red ink]

Click to expand...

Think it, through, ProShooter. (Also, you'll get further with me if you keep it calm and offer alternatives to help persuade rather than just arguing with declarations and telling the forum that my advice will cause trouble.)

Did he ask him to step out of the car because he saw again the gun he'd already seen?

Did he ask him to step out of the car because he wanted to talk to him when he had earlier talked to him in the car?

Did he ask him to step out of the car because he noticed the gun covered the VIN?

Nope. Looked at the voice-recorder. Then asked the OP to step outof the car.

To say loudly that the only person who knows what the officer was thinking is like sayingthe officer took out his ticket book after looking at tires that are known to be bald andconcluding he isabout to writean invitation to the policeman's ball.

The only way this might work is if the officer already intended to get him outof the car whenthe officer came back from the patrol car out of suspicionsomething was up over the CHP not being in thestate police data base.And then justhappened to glance at the gun while giving his preamble for getting the OP out of the car. None of which quite makescomplete sense weighed against the fact that there would be no reason to preamble or explain, ifthe officerwas genuinely suspicious of something.Also, itdoesn't makesense that he would mentiona fact that in a guilty person would trigger some sort of indication of deceptionin the middle of getting him out of the car. Nor does it make sense that he would mention it before getting him out of the car and then interrupt an interrogation to get him away from the gun.

Fortunately our 1st Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance does not require us to completely investigate and eliminate all possibilities.

I maintain that the officer ordered him out of the car to separate himself from the recording.

If the officer has a good reason, he can bring it up during the internal affairs investigation. If its valid and has the ring of truth, his superiors will accept it.

imported post

skidmark wrote:

Generally, you done good.  Sometimes it is difficult to remember to start the voice recorder, so no significant loss of points there.  Sounds like you knew about the drastic change of speed, but just did not see the itty-bitty sign as you flew past it.  (Arguing 35 in a 25 vs. 45 in a 25 on the side of the street is not productive, in my limited experience, but having a recording of your statement denying the higher speed could prove worthwhile at your hearing.) 

I'm thinking that the cop was thinking that you moved your handgun from wherever it was to the dash - and he even asked you about that.  That formed a basis for him to try to determine if you might have been carrying concealed until he lit you up, which then got him wondering why your CHP was not "in the system."

Personally, I'm also wondering why your CHP is not in the system.  The Clerk of the Circuit Court has a bit of computer work to do before or immediately after handing your CHP to you.  Part of that includes electronically recording the existence of the CHP, which then ties in with the stae police database that cops use to look up your registration info.  At two weeks old your CHP should have been in the system.

Fortunately, it is not your problem to remedy.  However, if some other cop wants to check your CHP and it is not in the system you might begin experiencing additional officer-safety actions on the part of the cop.

Back to the original stop - I've always heard it as good advice to leave the handgun where it was before you noticed the cops were noticing you.  I was told it prevents them from claiming a "furtive movement" on your part which could be the basis of an extended conversation and/or sightseeing trip through your vehicle.  It's up to you to inform them ahead of time or not about the presence of the handgun.  I've always taken the position that I will do so before any movement of my hands off of the steering wheel or complying with any order to exit the vehicle.  I might inform the cop before then, depending on circumstances.  (My favorite is as an OBTW comment as I'm leaving a sobriety checkpoint. )

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

Agreed. Good post that actually MAY be what happened. Some of these other guys are just wacked out.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

SNIP [arguing with Citizen in red ink]

Click to expand...

Think it, through, ProShooter.

Did he ask him to step out of the car because he saw again the gun he'd already seen?

Did he ask him to step out of the car because he wanted to talk to him when he had earlier talked to him in the car?

Did he ask him to step out of the car because he noticed the gun covered the VIN?

Nope.  Looked at the voice-recorder.  Then asked the OP to step out of the car.

To say loudly that the only person who knows what the officer was thinking is like saying the officer took out his ticket book after looking at tires that are known to be bald and concluding he is about to write an invitation to the policeman's ball. 

The only way this might work is if the officer already intended to get him out of the car when the officer came back from the patrol car out of suspicion something was up over the CHP not being in the state police data base.  And then just happened to glance at the gun while giving his preamble for getting the OP out of the car.  None of which quite makes complete sense weighed against the fact that there would be no reason to preamble or explain, if the officer was genuinely suspicious of something.  Also, it doesn't make sense that he would mention a fact that in a guilty person would trigger some sort of indication of deception in the middle of getting him out of the car.  Nor does it make sense that he would mention it before getting him out of the car and then interrupt an interrogation to get him away from the gun.

Fortunately our 1st Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance does not require us to completely investigate and eliminate all possibilities.

I maintain that the officer ordered him out of the car to separate himself from the recording.

If the officer has a good reason, he can bring it up during the internal affairs investigation.  If its valid and has the ring of truth, his superiors will accept it.

Click to expand...

IA INVESTIGATION!!! Are you SERIOUS!!! :uhoh: Wow, that's all I can say. For once you guys actually leave me speechless.

imported post

I'm pretty much with ProShooter on this one. Why remove razor from the vehicle because of a voice recorder when everything is already being recorded by the in car cam and mic? I think it was the lack of the CPL in the system that instigated the removal from the vehicle. That is just supposition on my part, but as valid a supposition that he was removed because of the voice recorder.

ETA: I'm really not seeing a problem here besides razor moving the firearm before the LEO approached. Had he left it on the console with his hands on the steering wheel it may never have been any issue at all and amounted to the same end result, a verbal warning and have a nice day.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

SNIP Why remove razor from the vehicle because of a voice recorder when everything is already being recorded by the in car cam and mic?

Click to expand...

I thought about this.

I couldn't see how Razor knew the car was actually recording. Thus, I couldn't really credit that the officer knew it was definitely recording.

Be that as it may, a recording in the hands of citizens is a little different than a recording in the hands of police. Despite having regs on recordings, somehow not one of the officers or cars at the Tony's incident had recording when FOIA time came. Out of seven vehicles or so. Hmmmmm.

Also, lets not discountthe police-supporters here that have repeated more than once that some police don't like being recorded. Something we can see for ourselves on footage on the internet. I can easily see an automatic reaction to remove the OP from the car, an automatic reactionthat does noteventake time to consider about any recording in the patrol car one way or another.

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

IA INVESTIGATION!!! Are you SERIOUS!!! :uhoh: Wow, that's all I can say. For once you guys actually leave me speechless.

Click to expand...

Scary thing is, I think he is serious......

An IA invest over a perfectly handled traffic stop that resulted in both sides driving away happy and satisfied, with no summons issued.

What's next? A complaint that the police didnt feed dinner to your kidnapped child before they returned him safely?Filing a 1983 suit because an officer didnt put yourbills in numerical orderafter he caught the perp who lifted your wallet?

An internet wolf-cryer is born every minute.........

imported post

With all that said,

Lets look at this from another angle.

It would seem ProShooter, and perhaps certain other dissenters, want a level of certainty achievable perhaps only by an investigation before exercising our 1A right to petition etc. I'm not saying my certainty is diminished. I'mshowing how theirs doesn'tfully make sense.

In a way, theyseem to be demanding investigation-level certainty before starting an investigation.



Alright then, so lets say I'm the only guy on the forum who is certain of my conclusion.

Then word the complaint with less certainty. Don't even call it a complaint. Call it a concerned citizen report:

Also, if I were a good cop,I'd be very interested in whether one of my brother officers violated someone's rights. By makinga complaint or report oneis doing the good cops a favor.

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

IA INVESTIGATION!!! Are you SERIOUS!!! :uhoh: Wow, that's all I can say. For once you guys actually leave me speechless.

Click to expand...

SNIP Scary thing is, I think he is serious......

An IA invest over a perfectly handled traffic stop that resulted in both sides driving away happy and satisfied, with no summons issued.

Click to expand...

Regarding seriousness, only to the extent that complaints have an IA character to them. Its my understanding complaints of this magnitude are routed through IA, and downchannels to supervisors. I would think something like this would behandled thus. I'm using IA as a generic term forself-policing.

Regarding both sides being satisfied,I think you lost me, ProShooter. We've seen plenty of "satisfied" OCers who were satisfied only because they didn't realize certain rights had in fact been violated,didn't know the police weren't allowed to do this or that.

ProShooter, your posts show you're not really working on persuading me or trying to bring me towards an agreement with you, certainly you're not working towardsme. You've gotten down into labeling--cyber wolf-crier.

Can you bring it up out of the mud, please.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

SNIP Why remove razor from the vehicle because of a voice recorder when everything is already being recorded by the in car cam and mic?

Click to expand...

I thought about this.

I couldn't see how Razor knew the car was actually recording. Thus, I couldn't really credit that the officer knew it was definitely recording.

Be that as it may, a recording in the hands of citizens is a little different than a recording in the hands of police. Despite having regs on recordings, somehow not one of the officers or cars at the Tony's incident had recording when FOIA time came. Out of seven vehicles or so. Hmmmmm.

Also, lets not discountthe police-supporters here that have repeated more than once that some police don't like being recorded. Something we can see for ourselves on footage on the internet. I can easily see an automatic reaction to remove the OP from the car, an automatic reactionthat does noteventake time to consider about any recording in the patrol car one way or another.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, Citizen and I also respect the fact that you have been on the front lines of this fight before I even understood what the fight is about and have seen, read and experienced a lot of things I may never run into because of those like you who were there first and already fought those battles.

On the other hand, because of such experiences I think it also possible to look for issues where there are none.

I'm going to invoke Occam's Razor here and think it dictates that the scenario that makes the fewest assumptions is that the LEO pulled over razor for speeding. Razor admitted to moving the gun making the LEO think it may have been concealed prompting the CPL request. Razor states he has a CPL, none shows up in the system, LEO asks Razor to step out of the car (and away from the gun) until he verifies the existence of the CPL and then realizing Razor is one of the GG who he had to inconvenience because of the CPL issue decides to cut him a break and just give a verbal warning.

There is nothing that indicates the LEO had any type of negative reaction to the pistol (he walked away leaving razor in the car with it) or that he was doing anything more than his job and then decided once it was all sorted out to just be a nice guy and say "Have a nice day, slow down and be safe".

imported post

Citizen wrote:

With all that said,

Lets look at this from another angle. 

It would seem ProShooter, and perhaps certain other dissenters, want a level of certainty achievable perhaps only by an investigation before exercising our 1A right to petition etc.  I'm not saying my certainty is diminished.  I'm showing how theirs doesn't fully make sense.

In a way, they seem to be demanding investigation-level certainty before starting an investigation. 

 

Alright then, so lets say I'm the only guy on the forum who is certain of my conclusion.

Then word the complaint with less certainty.  Don't even call it a complaint.  Call it a concerned citizen report:

Dear Major Doe, ....

Here is what happened.... 

I am concerned that I was removed in order to...

This would violate...See case law attached.

Please look into this and see if there is another reason...and let me know what you find out.

Regards,

 
​

Also, if I were a good cop, I'd be very interested in whether one of my brother officers violated someone's rights.  By making a complaint or report one is doing the good cops a favor.

Click to expand...

If the cop did something wrong (like excessive force, take the gun, be rude etc), then yes, most "good" cops would want that reported. But when you get into the practice of complaining simply to complain, it looks bad for the OC community and makes "good" officers become either lazy or angry. Another lesson for the officer will be ,"dang, I cut that guy a break and he makes a complaint on nothing, I should give everyone tickets for now on. No more breaks". Ironically, most complaints come when officers give breaks to people. Be it on a DUI, weed, speeding charges, people somehow get it through their heads that because the officer cut them a break, maybe he didn't have PC to stop them/arrest them anyway. That's why I tell the young guys to always give tickets and always arrest if you have the right to, at least the complaint will be over getting a ticket/arrested and not some weak crap like this case.

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

IA INVESTIGATION!!! Are you SERIOUS!!! :uhoh: Wow, that's all I can say. For once you guys actually leave me speechless.

Click to expand...

Scary thing is, I think he is serious......

An IA invest over a perfectly handled traffic stop that resulted in both sides driving away happy and satisfied, with no summons issued. 

What's next? A complaint that the police didnt feed dinner to your kidnapped child before they returned him safely?  Filing a 1983 suit because an officer didnt put your bills in numerical order after he caught the perp who lifted your wallet?

An internet wolf-cryer is born every minute.........

Click to expand...

A few of these guys go WAY beyond internet wolf-cryer, they take what a poster said and just make stuff up. It's not even spinning, it's just lying a lot of the times. Luckily there is only about 3-4 people here who do it.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

SNIP  Why remove razor from the vehicle because of a voice recorder when everything is already being recorded by the  in car cam and mic? 

Click to expand...

I thought about this.

I couldn't see how Razor knew the car was actually recording.  Thus, I couldn't really credit that the officer knew it was definitely recording.

Be that as it may, a recording in the hands of citizens is a little different than a recording in the hands of police.  Despite having regs on recordings, somehow not one of the officers or cars at the Tony's incident had recording when FOIA time came.  Out of seven vehicles or so.  Hmmmmm.

Also, lets not discount the police-supporters here that have repeated more than once that some police don't like being recorded.  Something we can see for ourselves on footage on the internet.  I can easily see an automatic reaction to remove the OP from the car, an automatic reaction that does not even take time to consider about any recording in the patrol car one way or another.

Click to expand...

I've never seen one Manassas PD or any other area PD's have recording devices in their cars. Maybe that was one of the issues...

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Geewhiz, guys. 169 views to this point, and 7 or 8 responses and nobody saw the 1A violation?

Click to expand...

I most certainly did. That's why I asked the OP the question I did.

The cop obviously did not want a civilian making a recording with all the gun questioning going on. No gun laws had been violated, but here sure was a lot of questioning taking place. Had a gun violation taken place it's common sense the OP would not have laid it on the dashboard, he would have hidden it from view. :shock:

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

SNIP There is nothing that indicates the LEO had any type of negative reaction to the pistol (he walked away leaving razor in the car with it) or that he was doing anything more than his job and then decided once it was all sorted out to just be a nice guy and say "Have a nice day, slow down and be safe".

Click to expand...

Good analysis. I would agree, except for one thing.

There is something that indicates the LEO had a negative reaction to the voice-recorder: the timing. And what he looked at just before he removed the OP from the car.

Wish I could play more tonight, fellas. Got to run.

imported post

Citizen wrote:
The cop removed you from the vehicle over the recording!
[/quote]




The above poster is one of the typical offenders of the "just make up stuff" issue. When did the OP of the officer say he was removed over the recording?

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Geewhiz, guys. 169 views to this point, and 7 or 8 responses and nobody saw the 1A violation? 

Click to expand...

I most certainly did.  That's why I asked the OP the question I did. 

The cop obviously did not want a civilian making a recording with all the gun questioning going on.   No gun laws had been violated, but here sure was a lot of questioning taking place.  Had a gun violation taken place it's common sense the OP would not have laid it on the dashboard, he would have hidden it from view.  :shock:

Click to expand...

Here is the other one who just makes stuff up. When did the OP or the officer say he didn't want a civilian making a recording?

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

Citizen wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

SNIP [arguing with Citizen in red ink]

Click to expand...

Think it, through, ProShooter.

Did he ask him to step out of the car because he saw again the gun he'd already seen?

Did he ask him to step out of the car because he wanted to talk to him when he had earlier talked to him in the car?

Did he ask him to step out of the car because he noticed the gun covered the VIN?

Nope. Looked at the voice-recorder. Then asked the OP to step outof the car.

To say loudly that the only person who knows what the officer was thinking is like sayingthe officer took out his ticket book after looking at tires that are known to be bald andconcluding he isabout to writean invitation to the policeman's ball.

The only way this might work is if the officer already intended to get him outof the car whenthe officer came back from the patrol car out of suspicionsomething was up over the CHP not being in thestate police data base.And then justhappened to glance at the gun while giving his preamble for getting the OP out of the car. None of which quite makescomplete sense weighed against the fact that there would be no reason to preamble or explain, ifthe officerwas genuinely suspicious of something.Also, itdoesn't makesense that he would mentiona fact that in a guilty person would trigger some sort of indication of deceptionin the middle of getting him out of the car. Nor does it make sense that he would mention it before getting him out of the car and then interrupt an interrogation to get him away from the gun.

Fortunately our 1st Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance does not require us to completely investigate and eliminate all possibilities.

I maintain that the officer ordered him out of the car to separate himself from the recording.

If the officer has a good reason, he can bring it up during the internal affairs investigation. If its valid and has the ring of truth, his superiors will accept it.

Click to expand...

IA INVESTIGATION!!! Are you SERIOUS!!! :uhoh: Wow, that's all I can say. For once you guys actually leave me speechless.

Click to expand...

Vic, this seems to be the theme here!!! I have only been here for a few days and quickly see how my fellow OCers are out for blood when it comes to cops. I greatly respect the job the police do and understand the reasoning why some things happen.

It is clearly a thankless job. A job I am not about to do for the risk involved or the hours!

I fail to see what the complaint would even be when you call internal affairs.

Sad that we are so quick to create trouble for someone for something to petty and without any foundation.

I can see the call to IA now:

"The officer saw my voice recorder and ordered me out of the car where my loaded hand gun was on the dash. I think the only reason he did itwas so that I could notcapture with him."

"Well, I guess maybe he did want to separate me from my gun while he spoke to me about my permit. One less ting for him to worry about while he tries to figure out if there is a problem with it not showing up."

"No sir, he was not rude to me and he never even gave me a ticket when I was clearly speeding. Did he disarm me? No. He actually let me keep my gun in the car with me."

"What did I hope to get on tape? Well sir, I just wanted tocapture anything he said so that if there was something improper said on his partI would have proof and coulduse it against him later."

"Sure, I will admit he was professional and polite from the beginning but I know from my OC board that cops cannot be trusted. I was sure he was going to cop an attitude and be rude. Imagine how shocked I was when he was kind enough to let me off with a verbal warning."

"Well, what really got me was when he asked for my carry permit. I was not concealing so I think it was wrong for him to ask for it."

"Well, I guess you are right that the permit could havebeen revoked and must be returned to the court. Maybe he was concerned that since mine did not show up it may have been invalid. Once he found out it was new he let me go. He appeared to be satisfied with the idea that it just had not been entered yet."

"So what is my complaint? Well, I guess there is really nothing to complain about. Everything seems to have a reasonable explanation. He did not hold me any longer than necessary for his investigation on my carry permit. But my gun board told me I should complain so I am doing it."



prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, that the person is "under the influence" for purposes of this section: manslaughter in violation of § 18.2-36.1, maiming in violation of § 18.2-51.4, driving while intoxicated in violation of § 18.2-266, public intoxication in violation of § 18.2-388, or driving while intoxicated in violation of § 46.2-341.24. Upon such conviction that court shall revoke the person's permit for a concealed handgun and promptly notify the issuing circuit court. A person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be ineligible to apply for a concealed handgun permit for a period of five years.



J4. The court shall revoke the permit of any individual for whom it would be unlawful to purchase, possess or transport a firearm under § 18.2-308.1:2 or 18.2-308.1:3, and shall promptly notify the State Police and the person whose permit was revoked of the revocation.

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

You have GOT to be kidding me. "How the cop felt"??? Give me a break.

Click to expand...

What part of the word "opinion" did you not understand? I asked the OP for his "opinion".

The things people say, and the manner in which they say them,help form a person's opinion of another person or what the person is saying. Yourspeech for example, they clearly show you let little things rattle your cage way too much...... "You got to be kidding me", "Give me a break", "Some of these other guys are just wacked out", "Are you SERIOUS!!! Wow, that's all I can say", etc.... I haven't known you to have one good day in this forum. Hope you have better days in real life.

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

Vic, this seems to be the theme here!!! I have only been here for a few days and quickly see how my fellow OCers are out for blood when it comes to cops.

Click to expand...

You learn quickly young Jedi...

imported post

SaltH2OHokie wrote:

I don't normally unholster when in the car unless I'm on a long trip, so whether that leaves me 100% concealed or concealed by nature of the seat and seat belt, I'll likely just hand him my license and registration calmly and just as calmly inform him that I am legally carrying, ....

Click to expand...

....which reminds me of a practice I've been following, and any of you LEO's feel free to chime in and comment whether you think this is a wise practice or not.

Like salty-hokie, my normal practice is to keep the sidearm holstered on my hip unless I'm on a long trip. I place my pistol in my glove box for long road trips - glovebox unlocked. Then I got to thinking, if I got pulled over for speeding, I normally sit still with my hands on the wheel until the officer approaches and asks for my license and registration. I would rather avoid the "oh-by-the-way, don't be surprised, there's a pistol in my glovebox", nor am I required to inform the officer I have a concealed handgun.

So my solution is to keep my registration and insurance information in the visor organzer, separate from the pistol. This also has the added advantage of keeping the documents from getting lost in all the clutter that seems to find its way into the glovebox anyway.

Not trying to be sneaky, and don't have a problem acknowledging the permit and the pistol, I just prefer the announcement (if so needed) to be a separate event from the presentation of the sidearm.

I don't know if this has actually helped or not, but I've been pulled over twice in all the years I've been carrying, andin both cases the officer neverasked if I had a gun,even after they ran mylicense. Both times, the gun was in the glovebox and my registration and insurance in the visor.

Does this make sense, or am I over-thinking this thing?