Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Can being pulled over be considered "detained"?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    So I am new to OC. So I know they can't take my gun unless they suspect me of a crime, RAS I believe? If I'm pulled over for speeding, broken tail light, etc., is that considered a crime? Does that constitute being detained?

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Nathan9493 wrote:
    So I am new to OC. So I know they can't take my gun unless they suspect me of a crime, RAS I believe? If I'm pulled over for speeding, broken tail light, etc., is that considered a crime? Does that constitute being detained?
    Its not obvious because there are different words for different situations. Like "traffic stop", "detained", and "Terry Stopped."

    The main overall concept is "seizure". It comes from the 4th Amendment:

    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. (my emphasis)

    Notice that word "seize" is associated with people and things. In this discussion we are just talking about people.

    If I had to sum up the idea of "seizure" without citing legal references (which I am doing), I would have to say the main element is that the seizure occurs without your consent. The government takes control of you or something you own over top of your consent.

    For example, in Terry vs Ohio, the US Supreme Court made it clear that even though a stop-and-frisk was not an arrest, there was no question it was a seizure with regard to the 4th Amendment.

    I am sure there are laws in your state that say when the flashing blue lights appear behind your car, you are required to pull over and stop. Your consent is not considered or mentioned. There is nothing voluntary about it as far as the law is concerned. Do it, or else.

    I will look up some court cases for you with regard to police seizing your gun during a traffic stop.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    The short answer is, yes. A traffic stop is a "seizure" for the purposes of the 4th Amendment. And, yes, cops can temporarily seize your gun for officer safety during a traffic stop under certain specific circumstances.

    PA vs Mimms

    Syllabus (summary)

    After police officers had stopped respondent's automobile for being operated with an expired license plate, one of the officers asked respondent to step out of the car and produce his license and registration. As respondent alighted, a large bulge under his jacket was noticed by the officer, who thereupon frisked him and found a loaded revolver. Respondent was then arrested and subsequently indicted for carrying a concealed weapon and unlicensed firearm. His motion to suppress the revolver was denied and after a trial, at which the revolver was introduced in evidence, he was convicted. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed on the ground that the revolver was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    Held: (holding = the part of the opinion that is binding. The text belowis still from the summary)

    1. The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable, and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The State's proffered justification for such order -- the officer's safety -- is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being, at most, a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety.

    2. Under the standard announced in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 392 U. S. 21-22 -- whether

    "the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the action taken was appropriate"

    -- the officer was justified in making the search he did once the bulge in respondent's jacket was observed.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/434/106/case.html

    From the syllabus to Michigan vs Long (which involved a traffic stop):

    2. The protective search of the passenger compartment of respondent's car was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. Although Terry involved the stop and subsequent patdown search for weapons of a person suspected of criminal activity, it did not restrict the preventive search to the person of the detained suspect. Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...3_1032_ZS.html

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Here is a list of federal cases and other legal informatinI have been compiling for a while:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/23936.html



    Why do I compile and learn all this? Because it puts me in good company. And, you too can join that company by learning the law. Here is somethingfamed Irish philosopher and parliamentarian Edmund Burke said when speaking to Parliament about England reconciling with the colonies just prior to the American Revolution:

    Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study...

    ...that when great honours and great emoluments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state, it is a formidable adversary to government. If the spirit be not tamed and broken by these happy methods, it is stubborn and litigious...

    ...This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defence, full of resources...

    In other countries, the people...judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.(my emphasis)

    --Edmund Burke 22 Mar 1775, Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies.


    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...s/v1ch1s2.html


    So, I invite you to join me in the company of patriots who gave the Crown and Parliament fits because they learned the law. Learning the law is patriotic!

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    One last post, then I'll be quiet for a while.

    It is important to understand that most of what I've posted above is for use after a police encounter. Knowing it during a police encounter is important--it gives you confidence and lets you know whether the cop is making it up or giving you false info. But you don't use it to argue with the cop.

    I said most of what I posted. There are two videos on the other thread linked just above. Those two videos contain information for use during a police encounter. The information can be summed up as:

    1. Politely, verbally refuse consent to searches and seizures.
    2. Don't talk to the police without your attorney.

    I am convinced after more than two years ofreading up on court cases and so forth that the bestthing to do is:




    Politely verbally refuse consent tosearches and seizures*, andpolitely decline to answer questions without an attorney, while complying with orders.


    Do not argue with the cop. Above all do not physically resist the cop.

    *You want to becareful where to draw the line on refusingconsent to sobriety testing. At some point, your refused consenttoalcohol testing may jeopardize your driver's license.





    Here are the two videos:

    Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters by FlexYourRights(dot)org, who by the way have an awesome website.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA



    Don't Talk to Policeby Prof. James Duane of Regent University Law School:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Citizen,

    wow! That's a lot to put head around. What confuses me though is that in the Washington's forums, you'll read over and over that they cannot take your weapon unless you're suspected of a crime. They all cite several experiences were they have refused on this bases and have put the cop in his/her place.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    not being in a car and being in a car a 2 dift things

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Nathan9493 wrote:
    Citizen,

    wow! That's a lot to put head around. What confuses me though is that in the Washington's forums, you'll read over and over that they cannot take your weapon unless you're suspected of a crime. They all cite several experiences were they have refused on this bases and have put the cop in his/her place.
    BooBoo makes the point. There is a difference between atraffic stop and a foot stop. "Stop" here having the meaning of "detention."

    Terry vs Ohio is the starting point. It addressesfoot encounters. There are two elements:

    1. Police need reasonable suspicion that you were, are, or will soonbe involved in a crime in order to involuntarily detain you. This is called a Terry Stop.

    2. If the police officer also has a reason to suspect you are both armed and presently dangerous, he may frisk you for weapons--gun, knife, etc. This is sometimes referred to as a Terry Patdown.

    If the officer has no RAS of a crime, he has no authority to involuntarily detain you in the first place. If he has no authority to detain you in the first place, he has no authority to search youfor weapons for officer safety.

    In a traffic stop, you have already been detained by the fact of the traffic stop.The court cases, PA v Mimms and Michigan v Long are applicable.

    I cannot emphasize enough that you do not want to do more than politely, verbally refuse consent to a search or weapon seizure. Even if he is mistaken about the law, if the officer wants your gun, he is going to get it.

    With foot encounters there is another very important dynamic. The courts have reserved to themselves the power to determine whether RAS existed at the time of the detention. Meaning, after the fact. In the roughly 40 years since Terry, courts all over the country have been ruling on whether various sets of circumstances give enough RAS to justify thedetention. That is an awful lot of individual sets of circumstances to try to memorize. There is almost no way you can know with 100% certainty whether the copreally has genuine RAS during the encounter.

    You would have to know all the cases that have alreadybeen ruled. You would have to guess what a court would rule in your case. You would have to guess what the LEO observed or thinks he observed before approaching you. You would have to guess what the 911 caller told the LEO.

    Guess wrong, and walk away whenthe cop thinks you are not freeto go and you might get tasered, or worse. Maybe an obstruction charge.Actually touch the cop, and the least you can hope for is assaulting a police officer. Charged after he and his buddies grind your face into the pavement, of course.

    Start throwing his errors in his face, and you may back him into a corner where he has to find something to charge you with, or plant evidence, inorder to avoid being sued, his only way out being to make sure he gets you convicted first.

    The smart-alecky, put-them-in-their-place encounters are fun to read about, but get the wrong cop and it could go bad, really bad.

    I recommend politely, verbally refusing consent while complying with orders. After you are well read, then you canknow what questions to ask to give the police rope to hang themselves if it is an illegaldetention.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Nathan9493 wrote:
    Citizen,

    wow! That's a lot to put head around. What confuses me though is that in the Washington's forums, you'll read over and over that they cannot take your weapon unless you're suspected of a crime. They all cite several experiences were they have refused on this bases and have put the cop in his/her place.
    Here might be the confusion.

    Refusal is not connected to knowing the circumstances or whether the detention is legal. You do not need a basis to refuse consent. If a person needed a basis to refuse consent to a search or seizure, he'd have to be a lawyer and he'd have to hope the cop was telling the truth and the whole truth about the basis for the detention or search.

    A person can refuse consent to any search or seizure. If it is a lawful search or seizure his refused consent won't matter. The evidence will still be admissable.

    BUT! if it was not a lawful search or seizure, the evidence may get tossed out by the judge. And, as I understand it, the police or city may be liable to you for damages.

    The encounters you read about may have included the OCersconclusions that they were being illegally detained. But, the presence or absence of genuine RAS--the legality or illegality of the detention--has no bearing on your right to refuse consent.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    So back to my original question. Is a traffic stop a suspicion of a crime ?


  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Nathan9493 wrote:
    So back to my original question. Is a traffic stop a suspicion of a crime ?

    Yes. As I understand it, police can stop your carif they suspect you are committing a crime or are about to commit a crime, as well as for a traffic violation.

    In a traffic violation stop, he's already seen the offense, otherwise he wouldn't have stopped you. PA vs Mimms and Michigan vs Long were both traffic stops. The court upheld the weapon searchin both.

    As an example of a car stop that does not involve a traffic infraction, lets say the cop sees you driving slowly through a neighborhood at night. Maybe they have had some burglaries in that neighborhood and your car roughly approximates a strange car that was reported as seen driving through the neighborhood just before one of the earlier burglaries. A court might find this gives enough RAS to stop your car.

    Another example would be if your car approximates the description of a getaway car used in a bank or convenience store robbery a few minutes ago.

    Another example would involve the Beltway sniper some years ago here in the DC area. Somebody reported seeing a white van driving away after one of the shootings. After that, police were stopping white vans after the next shooting, and the next, and the...

    If the cops get a report that you waved a gun at somebody and then drove off in such-and-such car with license plate number so-and-so, you can bet you are going to get stopped for suspicion of brandishing.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Nathan9493 wrote:
    So back to my original question. Is a traffic stop a suspicion of a crime ?
    @ Nathan9493: Citizen answered your question I believe in his second or third post.

    You're stopped in a traffic stop technically because "you were performing an infraction." So, in short, no... it's technically a detection and correction of a crime.

    For example, the police officer uses his radar and pulls you over for going 9mi over the speed limit. You've already "committed the crime" and he's attempting to correct it.

    (My best description of it, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  13. #13
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    killchain wrote:
    Nathan9493 wrote:
    So back to my original question. Is a traffic stop a suspicion of a crime ?
    You're stopped in a traffic stop technically because "you were performing an infraction." So, in short, no... it's technically a detection and correction of a crime.
    (Chuckle.) Your use of the word "technically" reminds me of another wrinkle.

    As I understand it, the police can use a traffic infraction as a pretext to stop you for something more serious. Say, they want to stop youbecause you "look like the druggie type". They just follow you a little bit, maybe a little too close, maybe stick behind youthrough a few turns at intersections to see if they can unnerve you into doing something dumb. Then you forget to signal a turn, or change lanes improperly or something and suddenly there are blue lights flashing in your rearview mirror.

    Of course, the cop will be sure to ask lots of questions that don't ordinarily get askedat a traffic-violation stop. Maybe he leans in close to sniff the air in the car. Maybe he asks permission to search. Maybe he threatens to bring the dogs if you refuse the search.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Nathan9493 wrote:
    So I am new to OC. So I know they can't take my gun unless they suspect me of a crime, RAS I believe? If I'm pulled over for speeding, broken tail light, etc., is that considered a crime? Does that constitute being detained?
    SNIP RAS for a detainment...RAS for a detainment.
    detention, detention, detention, DETENTION!!!

    Who is the origin of this psuedo-word "detainment"?

    Arrrrrrrgh!!!!!

    (OK, I feel better now. Thanks for watching. )
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    detain One entry found.
    Main Entry: de·tain Pronunciation: di-ˈtān, dē-Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English deteynen, from Anglo-French deteign-, stem of detenir, modification of Latin detinēre, from de- + tenēre to hold — more at thinDate: 15th century 1 : to hold or keep in or as if in custody <detained by the police for questioning>
    2 obsolete : to keep back (as something due) : withhold
    3 : to restrain especially from proceeding <was detained by a flat tire>
    synonyms see keep, delayde·tain·ment -mənt noun

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detainment

    I don't know who is the origin of the word detainment because I wasn't around in the 15th century which is when Merriam-Webster says the word came about.

    That is quite an erudite comment you made there, Citizen. I feel better now as well.
    Damn Navy smart-alecks! :P

    I've never once read the word "detainment" in a court opinion. Nor a legal brief or document, that I can recall.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Here is a good briefing on different cases out of Ga.

    http://www.uga.edu/icje/documents/Re...pDetention.pdf
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Here is a good briefing on different cases out of Ga.

    http://www.uga.edu/icje/documents/Re...pDetention.pdf
    That first case would really narrow down the scope of a pre-text stop. You wouldn't happen to have any SCOTUS cites on that would you?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Nathan9493 wrote:
    So I am new to OC. So I know they can't take my gun unless they suspect me of a crime, RAS I believe? If I'm pulled over for speeding, broken tail light, etc., is that considered a crime? Does that constitute being detained?
    SNIP RAS for a detainment...RAS for a detainment.
    detention, detention, detention, DETENTION!!!

    Who is the origin of this psuedo-word "detainment"?

    Arrrrrrrgh!!!!!

    (OK, I feel better now. Thanks for watching. )
    Got big after Gitmo was opened no doubt. Because "detained" sounds more evil than "arrested for terrorist activity."
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  20. #20
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    killchain wrote:
    Nathan9493 wrote:
    So back to my original question. Is a traffic stop a suspicion of a crime ?
    You're stopped in a traffic stop technically because "you were performing an infraction." So, in short, no... it's technically a detection and correction of a crime.
    (Chuckle.) Your use of the word "technically" reminds me of another wrinkle.

    As I understand it, the police can use a traffic infraction as a pretext to stop you for something more serious. Say, they want to stop youbecause you "look like the druggie type". They just follow you a little bit, maybe a little too close, maybe stick behind youthrough a few turns at intersections to see if they can unnerve you into doing something dumb. Then you forget to signal a turn, or change lanes improperly or something and suddenly there are blue lights flashing in your rearview mirror.

    Of course, the cop will be sure to ask lots of questions that don't ordinarily get askedat a traffic-violation stop. Maybe he leans in close to sniff the air in the car. Maybe he asks permission to search. Maybe he threatens to bring the dogs if you refuse the search.
    Well put. Glad my political correctness helped you to educate us. I'm dead serious.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Here is a good briefing on different cases out of Ga.

    http://www.uga.edu/icje/documents/Re...pDetention.pdf
    That first case would really narrow down the scope of a pre-text stop. You wouldn't happen to have any SCOTUS cites on that would you?
    Are you talking about the State vs Gibbons?
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Here is a good briefing on different cases out of Ga.

    http://www.uga.edu/icje/documents/Re...pDetention.pdf
    That first case would really narrow down the scope of a pre-text stop. You wouldn't happen to have any SCOTUS cites on that would you?
    Are you talking about the State vs Gibbons?
    Yes.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    would somebody please define RAS exactly? I think I know what it is, but not confident.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    All of Citizen's remarks and case citations appear to be accurate (I just skimmed them and they look good to me). The thing to be careful about is that Washington has its own body of law and Citizen, apparently being from Virginia, may not be aware of some of our twists and turns.

    Having said that, law enforcement cannot do "worse" things to you in WA than they can in other places. Legal analysis of the WA constitution (examining the factors from State v. Gunwall) has in many cases lead to greater protection for citizens in WA. A very good outline of WA search and seizure law can be found at the WAPA web site: http://www.waprosecutors.org/. Click on "Manuals" and then on "Search & Seizure".

    One other thing to be very careful about. The OP wasn't completely clear but I got the impression they were asking about open carry in a vehicle (since their question appeared to be about a vehicle stopped). Even if I'm wrong about that, we all need to remember that we are not allowed to carry a loaded pistol inside a vehicle unless we have a CPL. RCW 9.41.050(2)(a). Further, in WA a semi-auto is loaded if there is ammo in the magazine and the magazine is inserted in the pistol even if the chamber is empty. RCW 9.41.010(9).

    P.S. - - nothing in this post should be regarded as legal advice or construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

Posting Permissions

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