• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Getting pulled over while armed in Fairfax County.

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
SNIP We always appreciate if you tell us you are armed. In Virginia it is optional...
Its a little more than optional, fellas.

Its more than just the fact that there is no law requiring you to declare that you are armed.

Its constitutionally protected by the 4th Amendment.

No court opinion of which I am aware has yet authorized a police officer to just up and automatically search you or your vehicle at the outset of a traffic stop just to find out whether you are armed when there was no reason to suspect the same.

Of course the government agents appreciate when we waive or ignore the rights put in place to restrict them. Of course they do.
And if there is no requirement (by law or otherwise) to tell then it is simply optional!! Enough said.

How did you make the jump from voluntarily tell a cop you are armed to the cop not having any "authorization" to search your car?

You are going off an a tangent while the rest of us are having a discussion about informing if you are armed or not.

Stop beating your war drums and trying to do battle. It is not necessary here. :lol:
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Citizen wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
SNIP We always appreciate if you tell us you are armed. In Virginia it is optional...
Its a little more than optional, fellas.

Its more than just the fact that there is no law requiring you to declare that you are armed.

Its constitutionally protected by the 4th Amendment.

No court opinion of which I am aware has yet authorized a police officer to just up and automatically search you or your vehicle at the outset of a traffic stop just to find out whether you are armed when there was no reason to suspect the same.

Of course the government agents appreciate when we waive or ignore the rights put in place to restrict them. Of course they do.
And if there is no requirement (by law or otherwise) to tell then it is simply optional!! Enough said.

How did you make the jump from voluntarily tell a cop you are armed to the cop not having any "authorization" to search your car?

You are going off an a tangent while the rest of us are having a discussion about informing if you are armed or not.

Stop beating your war drums and trying to do battle. It is not necessary here. :lol:
Are you trying to persuade me to cease informing OCers about the full extent of their rights?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:

Are you trying to persuade me to cease informing OCers about the full extent of their rights?
Not at all. We all know your platform.

It just seems that you are trying to embellish things and steer this conversation about something beyond a discussion on deciding if you should tell a cop you are armed or not.

Forced vehicle searches are a completely different subject.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Citizen wrote:

Are you trying to persuade me to cease informing OCers about the full extent of their rights?
Not at all. We all know your platform.

It just seems that you are trying to embellish things and steer this conversation about something beyond a discussion on deciding if you should tell a cop you are armed or not.

Forced vehicle searches are a completely different subject.

Thank you. You are welcome to step aboard the pro-rights platform and join me at any time. (Notice that I omitted to accuse that the platform comment seems to be an attack on a pro-rights platform.)

That's funny. I would have said that supplying the constitutional rights angle to the conversation would give a more complete view for anyone deciding whether to tell a cop he was armed.

Nice tryon trying to claim that I was discussing forcedvehicle searches. Up to your old tricksI see. Pretend I argued something else and then invalidate that.

So, do you consider the decision-making information complete when the conversation omits the constitutional protections?
 

virginiatuck

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
787
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
imported post

I think this is a prime example of why you should not say anything to an LEO during a traffic stop.

What Citizen said, "no court opinion [...] has yet authorized a police officer to just up and automatically search you or your vehicle at the outset of a traffic stop [...]" was paraphrased by LEO229 to "[...] the cop not having any authorization to search your car"

This is human. Everyone does it, not just LEO. It's just that an LEO has the power to arrest you over a misunderstanding.


Citizen said:

No court opinion of which I am aware has yet authorized a police officer to just up and automatically search you or your vehicle at the outset of a traffic stop just to find out whether you are armed when there was no reason to suspect the same.

LEO229 Said:
How did you make the jump from voluntarily tell a cop you are armed to the cop not having any "authorization" to search your car?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Citizen wrote:

Are you trying to persuade me to cease informing OCers about the full extent of their rights?
Not at all. We all know your platform.

It just seems that you are trying to embellish things and steer this conversation about something beyond a discussion on deciding if you should tell a cop you are armed or not.

Forced vehicle searches are a completely different subject.

Thank you. You are welcome to step aboard the pro-rights platform and join me at any time. (Notice that I omitted to accuse that the platform comment seems to be an attack on a pro-rights platform.)

That's funny. I would have said that supplying the constitutional rights angle to the conversation would give a more complete view for anyone deciding whether to tell a cop he was armed.

Nice tryon trying to claim that I was discussing forcedvehicle searches. Up to your old tricksI see. Pretend I argued something else and then invalidate that.

So, do you consider the decision-making information complete when the conversation omits the constitutional protections?
It appears you mistook what I said. I was not being derogatory when I used the term platform. I was referring to the fact that you are an advocate of rights and that is a position where you stand. I apologize if you took it the wrong way.

It is unfortunate that you view most of what I say as some type of attack or being derogatory when it is often something that is honest and sincere.

"No court opinion of which I am aware has yet authorized a police officer to just up and automatically search you or your vehicle at the outset of a traffic stop just to find out whether you are armed when there was no reason to suspect the same."


In forced searches I was referring to your post where you make it appear that the cop can just do it or "force" his way into your car. "Up and automatic"

There is nothing automatic about it. A search of the car can happen in many ways. One way is to check for weapons during a traffic stop if there is some reason to believe you are a threat. It clearly is not automatic. This being a threat is probably open to interpretation.


http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/0367982.txt



http://lw.bna.com/lw/19981117/974813.htm

U.S. v. SakyiThe same officer-safety considerations that were applied in Terry and Mimms prompted the Court in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), to hold that when a police officer lawfully stops a vehicle and possesses "a reasonable belief based on `specific and articulable facts' . . . that the suspect is dangerous and . . . may gain immediate control of weapons," the officer may search the areas of the passenger compartment of the automobile where "a weapon may be placed or hidden." Id. at 1049 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21). The Court based its reasoning in part on the reality that such stops involve an investigation "`at close range' when the officer remains particularly vulnerable in part because a full custodial arrest has not been effected, and the officer must make a `quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger . . . .'" Id. at 1052 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 24, 28). Thus, in the context of a lawful automobile stop when the officer is presented with an objectively suspicious and potentially dangerous circumstance, the officer may conduct what amounts to a "`frisk' of an automobile for weapons." Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 332 (1990) (construing Long in the context of upholding, for safety reasons, a protective sweep of a house where a suspect had been arrested).


But it appears that the officer CAN up and search your car IF he believes you could be armed and a danger to him. (This is not automatic)

So Citizen, it appears a cop can search your car and see if you have a gun. :lol:
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
SNIP It is unfortunate that you view most of what I say as some type of attack or being derogatory when it is often something that is honest and sincere.

Backpedalling already? These aren't some type of attack?

And if there is no requirement (by law or otherwise) to tell then it is simply optional!! Enough said.

How did you make the jump from voluntarily tell a cop you are armed to the cop not having any "authorization" to search your car?

You are going off an a tangent while the rest of us are having a discussion about informing if you are armed or not.

Stop beating your war drums and trying to do battle. It is not necessary here. :lol:
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
SNIP It is unfortunate that you view most of what I say as some type of attack or being derogatory when it is often something that is honest and sincere.

Backpedalling already? These aren't some type of attack?

And if there is no requirement (by law or otherwise) to tell then it is simply optional!! Enough said.

How did you make the jump from voluntarily tell a cop you are armed to the cop not having any "authorization" to search your car?

You are going off an a tangent while the rest of us are having a discussion about informing if you are armed or not.

Stop beating your war drums and trying to do battle. It is not necessary here. :lol:
Who is back peddling?

Nothing I said in that post is an attack. It is a recommendation that you need not go to battle over something.

See, that again is your problem. You see everything as an attack. :uhoh:

How about going to the range with me some day. I think you would feel differently if you met me in person. You, me, and a few other OC guys here I hang out with so the odds will be on your side. :lol:
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
SNIP In forced searches I was referring to your post where you make it appear that the cop can just do it or "force" his way into your car. "Up and automatic"
This is what I said: No court opinion of which I am aware has yet authorized a police officer to just up and automatically search you or your vehicle at the outset of a traffic stop just to find out whether you are armed when there was no reason to suspect the same.

The context is the 4th Amendment.

(sigh)

Fellas, please excuse me while I patiently explain to LEO229.

I'll paraphrase for him so he can understand.

As I understand it, courts have prohibited warrantless searches of cars outside of express exceptions-- Plain view, inventory, etc.

There has not been made an exception for just deciding to search the car without reason to suspect the presence of weapons or danger. (Thank you for the case citeabove.)

Thus, knowledge of whether there is a gun in the car is restricted from the LEO by the 4A,unless a case lawexception for a warrantless search applies. He cannot find out about it on his own by warrantless search without an exception. Thus it is protected in states that do not require the gun owner to notify.

So, its a little more than just optional. Its protected by the 4A.

Do you agree it should be that way, LEO229?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Citizen wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
SNIP It is unfortunate that you view most of what I say as some type of attack or being derogatory when it is often something that is honest and sincere.

Backpedalling already? These aren't some type of attack?

And if there is no requirement (by law or otherwise) to tell then it is simply optional!! Enough said.

How did you make the jump from voluntarily tell a cop you are armed to the cop not having any "authorization" to search your car?

You are going off an a tangent while the rest of us are having a discussion about informing if you are armed or not.

Stop beating your war drums and trying to do battle. It is not necessary here. :lol:
Who is back peddling?

Nothing I said in that post is an attack. It is a recommendation that you need not go to battle over something.

See, that again is your problem. You see everything as an attack. :uhoh:

How about going to the range with me some day. I think you would feel differently if you met me in person. You, me, and a few other OC guys here I hang out with so the odds will be on your side. :lol:

(see red highlights for invalidation)

The multiple exclamation points aren't argumentative? (Rhetorical question)
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
SNIP In forced searches I was referring to your post where you make it appear that the cop can just do it or "force" his way into your car. "Up and automatic"
This is what I said: No court opinion of which I am aware has yet authorized a police officer to just up and automatically search you or your vehicle at the outset of a traffic stop just to find out whether you are armed when there was no reason to suspect the same.

The context is the 4th Amendment.

(sigh)

Fellas, please excuse me while I patiently explain to LEO229.

I'll paraphrase for him so he can understand.

As I understand it, courts have prohibited warrantless searches of cars outside of express exceptions-- Plain view, inventory, etc.

There has not been made an exception for just deciding to search the car without reason to suspect the presence of weapons or danger has not been authorized. (Thank you for the case citeabove.)

Thus, knowledge of whether there is a gun in the car is restricted from the LEO by the 4A,unless a case lawexception for a warrantless search applies. He cannot find out about it on his own by warrantless search without an exception. Thus it is protected in states that do not require the gun owner to notify.

So, its a little more than just optional. Its protected by the 4A.

Do you agree it should be that way, LEO229?
Oh, I understood what you were getting at. Give me a little more credit Citizen. I never rode the short bus to school.

"No court opinion of which I am aware has yet authorized a police officer to just up and automatically search you or your vehicle at the outset of a traffic stop just to find out whether you are armed when there was no reason to suspect the same."


The courts have ruled a great many things when it comes to vehicles. You are now aware that an officer can in fact check your vehicle for weapons if they suspect you are armed and dangerous.

I will agree that a traffic stop does not automatically equal permission to search a vehicle. That was never in question to me.

However it is still the option of the owner or operator in absence of the owner to allow a vehicle to be searched when asked. This is covered as a consensual search.

In no way did I ever say or infer that the 4th was optional. If you read it that way you were mistaken. The option is to either say yes or say no. The 4th amendment does not even come into play here as it only prevents the officer from jsut doing the search anyway.

In my original post I said "We always appreciate if you tell us you are armed. In Virginia it is optional..."

This clearly was identifying that you are not legally required to tell the officer you are armed. If you want to do it... it your option. I have a hard time understanding why you are getting fixated on this.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Citizen wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
SNIP It is unfortunate that you view most of what I say as some type of attack or being derogatory when it is often something that is honest and sincere.

Backpedalling already? These aren't some type of attack?

And if there is no requirement (by law or otherwise) to tell then it is simply optional!! Enough said.

How did you make the jump from voluntarily tell a cop you are armed to the cop not having any "authorization" to search your car?

You are going off an a tangent while the rest of us are having a discussion about informing if you are armed or not.

Stop beating your war drums and trying to do battle. It is not necessary here. :lol:
Who is back peddling?

Nothing I said in that post is an attack. It is a recommendation that you need not go to battle over something.

See, that again is your problem. You see everything as an attack. :uhoh:

How about going to the range with me some day. I think you would feel differently if you met me in person. You, me, and a few other OC guys here I hang out with so the odds will be on your side. :lol:

(see red highlights for invalidation)

The multiple exclamation points aren't argumentative? (Rhetorical question)
So what! Citizen, you are getting all worked up over nothing.

(sigh)

Fellas, please excuse me while I patiently explain to Citizen he is seeing things that are not there.

"is simply optional" = I am reinforcing my point that telling a cop you are armed is option.

"Enough said" = I do not think anything else needs to be said on the matter.

"war drums" = You often come in and beat your chest at what I post as you are clearly doing now while it is not necessary.

"trying to do battle" = No secret that you and I battle over words all the time. I am trying to tell you we do not need to.


I guess the difference between you and I is that you are thin skinned and I am not. I have taken a ton of crap from members here for over two years, you included. Most of the time I let it pass and do not get worked up over it.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
SNIP In forced searches I was referring to your post where you make it appear that the cop can just do it or "force" his way into your car. "Up and automatic"
This is what I said: No court opinion of which I am aware has yet authorized a police officer to just up and automatically search you or your vehicle at the outset of a traffic stop just to find out whether you are armed when there was no reason to suspect the same.

The context is the 4th Amendment.

(sigh)

Fellas, please excuse me while I patiently explain to LEO229.

I'll paraphrase for him so he can understand.

As I understand it, courts have prohibited warrantless searches of cars outside of express exceptions-- Plain view, inventory, etc.

There has not been made an exception for just deciding to search the car without reason to suspect the presence of weapons or danger. (Thank you for the case citeabove.)

Thus, knowledge of whether there is a gun in the car is restricted from the LEO by the 4A,unless a case lawexception for a warrantless search applies. He cannot find out about it on his own by warrantless search without an exception. Thus it is protected in states that do not require the gun owner to notify.
So, its a little more than just optional. Its protected by the 4A.

Do you agree it should be that way, LEO229?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:

So, its a little more than just optional. Its protected by the 4A.

Do you agree it should be that way, LEO229?
Not exactly.

You are protected against unreasonable search and seizures. Not your "option". :lol:

No search is being requested or performed. So the 4th amendment does not even apply yet.

You may, in a manner of speaking, be voluntarily waiving your 4th amendment rights by identifying what would be found if a search had taken place. But no search has been solicited or performed.

How is deciding to not report you are armed actually protected by anything?

Unless you are trying to simply add "If you decide to not tell the officer you are armed he would ordinarily not be permitted to just search you are your car unless he can articulate some good reason to do so."

Keeping in mind there is case law that allows you and your car to be searched even if you do not want the officer to know you are armed.

So I cannot agree with your post as written at this time.
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
In my professional opinion... tell the officer you are armed. Your honesty will be appreciated by most good cops. Play the odds.  What is the worst that can happen? You get a ticket??!! :lol:
You could get dragged down and put in front of the magistrate, due to an officers ignorance like what happened last year.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Oh, I understood what you were getting at. Give me a little more credit Citizen. I never rode the short bus to school.
Thank you for confessing that you've been needlessly arguing and extending the discussion.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Citizen wrote:

So, its a little more than just optional. Its protected by the 4A.

Do you agree it should be that way, LEO229?
Not exactly.

You are protected against unreasonable search and seizures. Not your "option". :lol:

No search is being requested or performed. So the 4th amendment does not even apply yet.

You may, in a manner of speaking, be voluntarily waiving your 4th amendment rights by identifying what would be found if a search had taken place. But no search has been solicited or performed.

How is deciding to not report you are armed actually protected by anything?

Unless you are trying to simply add "If you decide to not tell the officer you are armed he would ordinarily not be permitted to just search you are your car unless he can articulate some good reason to do so."

Keeping in mind there is case law that allows you and your car to be searched even if you do not want the officer to know you are armed.

So I cannot agree with your post as written at this time.

In light of your confession that you knew what I was getting at in an earlier post, and not riding the short bus, why didn't you just go ahead and answer the question posed in the abovepost? (rhetorical question)

I'll rephrase it for you so you can avoid having to disagree with the way it was literally written.



Do you agree that a lawfully held handgun should be protected from police warrantless search during a traffic stop by the 4th Amendment and related case law asthe latter two stand today?
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

I was following this thread but apparently two lawyers took it over and generated so much verbiage I was unable to keep up. Is there anyone here who could summarize for me???

:D
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Oh, I understood what you were getting at. Give me a little more credit Citizen. I never rode the short bus to school.
Thank you for confessing that you've been needlessly arguing and extending the discussion.
There you go using the phrase "confession" like your jesting actually resulted in something good.

You failed to articulate completely what you were trying to say. It took you several posts to finally get your point across. :lol:

I confess!! You do not post in a manner that all of us can immediately understand.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:

In light of your confession that you knew what I was getting at in an earlier post, and not riding the short bus, why didn't you just go ahead and answer the question posed in the abovepost? (rhetorical question)

I'll rephrase it for you so you can avoid having to disagree with the way it was literally written.



Do you agree that a lawfully held handgun should be protected from police warrantless search during a traffic stop by the 4th Amendment and related case law asthe latter two stand today?
Be happy to answer the question if you would actually write it in a fashion that can be logically and clearly understood.


I am going to reformat your question in the way I suspect it should probably be written.


Should a handgun should be protected by the 4th Amendment from [a] police warrantless search during a traffic stop?


This would make more sense. Does this read the same way as you were intending?
 
Top