• 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.

traffic stop, CHP, 4th amendment questions...

carpesignum

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

i got pulled over and had my pistol under my left leg while driving.

is this legal carry? my buddy said that its illegal and that the CHP is only good if the firearm is on your person. i always thought it was good for your possession (on person in glove box, under seat, etc.)?

-also, i told the officer i had my concealed carry permit

before i could tell him that i had it and where it was he asked

i told him that it was under my left leg, he opened my door and reached for my firearm,

i told him i did not want him to take it and he said it was for safety.

he took the firearm, unloaded it and handed me my mag + 1 and commented on it being a nice choice in firearms...(he also brought the firearm back after the traffic stop)

now, i have no real quam with the officer (he was not rude, handled my firearm properly, etc.) but what i want to know is if this violates my 4th amendment rights? he had no reason to believe the firearm was illegal or that my possession of it was illegal... (unless having it under my leg was not legal carry)
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Your carry method was legal assuming you had a permit. It might have been without one. Even if it was not considered open carry, having the permit to conceal allows you what ever flexibility you might need. He took your gun to run it through NCIC. He knew you had a permit (suspected you had a gun) because when he ran your tags there is a notation on your file that you have a permit. When that comes up they always ask.

Welcome to the forum.

You might want to go to the state police website and/or the ODCO legal pages and read up on some of this.

Regards

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Of course it's a 4th Amendment violation: he seized your firearm and searched to find if it was reported stolen, without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable articulable suspicion that crime was afoot.

Good luck on getting a court to rule that way, though.
 

frenchdl

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
32
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

I am NOT a lawyer or for that matter someone to take legal advice,

but,

I don't think it was necessary for you to hand over your weapon. You could have protested or simply said "no" and nothing else. You should not have let him open your door (keep it locked) and if he asked you to get out of the vehicle, you get out, shut the door, and lock it. I believe what he did was unconstitutional, and regardless of what people think our bill of rights still holds strong (I know from recent personal experience).

Like I said I may be completely wrong here, but I do believe that you could have simply told him "no, i prefer you not handle my gun, i will leave it where it is. If it must be secured I will lock it in the glove box. Thank you."
 

Citizen

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

carpesignum wrote:
SNIP i got pulled over and had my pistol under my left leg while driving.

...i told him that it was under my left leg, he opened my door and reached for my firearm,...

... he took the firearm,...

...what i want to know is if this violates my 4th amendment rights?

No, not your legally recognized constitutional rights; what is left of them anyway.

The case that started it all is Terry vs Ohio,[suP]1[/suP] a case about a foot encounter. Under Terry, in addition to needing a good reason to seize the person in the first place, two moreelementsmust be present in order for the LEO to search for and seize a weapon: 1) armed, and 2) presently dangerous. Again, this was a case about a foot-encounter.

The case that seems to controlin traffic stops, Pennsylvania vs Mimms,[suP]2[/suP] is worded in such a way that one can come away from it with the impression that armed equals dangerous, instead of armed and presently dangerous being two separate elements. However, a careful reading of the case, in full context does not automatically yield the meaning that armed equals dangerous.Certainly the court did not expressly say it was changing from the previous two-prong standard.

Pennsylvania vs Mimms:

...The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed, and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of "reasonable caution" would likely have conducted the "pat down."

Which circumstances are "these circumstances"? The mere presence of the gun? Or, the totality of the circumstances. There seems to be a number of court opinions where the "totality of circumstances" is the standard for deciding certain things.

However, the federal appeals court that has jurisdiction over Virginia didinterpret Mimms to mean that armed equals dangerous:

US vs Baker:[suP]3[/suP]

Based on the inordinate risk of danger to law enforcement officers during traffic stops, observing a bulge that could be made by a weapon in a suspect's clothing reasonably warrants a belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous, even if the suspect was stopped only for a minor violation.


So, it seems to be legal for police to just seize a gun from the driver during a traffic stop with no other restrictions about needing also separate circumstances indicating some sort of dangerousness.

I'll leave the righteousness and justice questions to your own opinion.

For other questions about your 4th and 5th Amendment rights during police encounters, there is a thread[suP]4[/suP] where I collected all my reference materials.

1. Terry vs Ohio: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

2. PA vs Mimms: http://supreme.justia.com/us/434/106/case.html

3. US vs Baker: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955287.P.pdf

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



PS: Thanks for the careful punctuation. Reading would be easier if you used capitalization where customary, too. :);)
 

Citizen

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

KBCraig wrote:
Of course it's a 4th Amendment violation: he seized your firearm and searched to find if it was reported stolen, without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable articulable suspicion that crime was afoot.

Good luck on getting a court to rule that way, though.

Depending on where the serial number is locatedon the gun, it may have been legal for the LEO to read it.

As I've shown above, the gun seizure was legal. Now that the gun is in the officer's hands, it iswithin plain view.The next question is whether any of the serial numbers on the gun are also in plain view.

Under Arizona vs Hicks, if the serial number was not in plain view, then uncovering it would have been unconstitutional. Conversely, if the serial number was in plain view, then reading it would not have been unconstitutional.

For example, some Smith & Wesson revolvers have the serial number written on the frame, under the cylinder crane, meaning you have to open the cylinder to read it, and they have the same serial number written on the bottom of the metal grip frame. Perhaps all S&W revolvers are like this; I don't know. If you have a factory or aftermarket grip that covers over the serial number on the grip frame, say like one of the Hogue or Uncle Mikes rubber grips, then the only way to read the serial number is to take off the grips or open the cylinder. Under Hicks either action by a police officer would be illegal (unless he hadsome otherprobable cause to believe the gun was evidence of a crime or one of the other circumstances listed in Hicks existed.)

Arizona vs Hicks: http://supreme.justia.com/us/480/321/index.html
 

NovaCop

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
471
Location
, ,
imported post

I believe this was reasonable considering Terry v Ohio. A crime was committed (traffic violation I am assuming) and you were seized by the officer. A terry "frisk" would be legal at that point. Considering you keep a gun under your loaded firearm under your leg would make any officer suspicious and interested in keeping themselves safe, so by temporarily seizing the weapon during the duration of the stop does not seem to violate any rights. Also, since you do have a weapon he would be allowed to investigate your permit and legal status to carry.

On a side note.. you should carry a gun in a holster. Although you do not legally have to tell the officer about the gun, doing so was the right thing. Any officer looking in and seeing a gun sticking out from under a leg would most likely result in them drawing their gun on you (legally) to determine the situation. You are responsible for that weapon and could be charged for an illegal discharge. Also, you should not be handling a firearm when you enter/exit your car to place the gun under your leg. You might be mistaken for brandishing a firearm.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

carpesignum wrote:
i got pulled over and had my pistol under my left leg while driving.why was it under your leg?

is this legal carry? my buddy said that its illegal and that the CHP is only good if the firearm is on your person. Your buddy is incorrect. i always thought it was good for your possession (on person in glove box, under seat, etc.)? Correct, anywhere within your wingspan in the passenger area.

-also, i told the officer i had my concealed carry permit

before i could tell him that i had it and where it was he asked

i told him that it was under my left leg, he opened my door and reached for my firearm,

i told him i did not want him to take it and he said it was for safety.

he took the firearm, unloaded it and handed me my mag + 1 and commented on it being a nice choice in firearms...(he also brought the firearm back after the traffic stop) Many officers would do the same thing for safety reasons so that it becomes less of a concern to them during the stop,although I'm sure someone in the next 5 minutes will chime in with some "agent of the state disarming you" mantra. Most judges that I have ever run into would have no issue with an officer temporarily taking control of the firearm during the course of the stop, assuming that he gave it back in a timely manner when the stop was over.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
Of course it's a 4th Amendment violation: he seized your firearm and searched to find if it was reported stolen, without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable articulable suspicion that crime was afoot.

Good luck on getting a court to rule that way, though.
Of course we're going to go off the deep end and assume that every right imaginable was violated here without a shred of evidence to support the illegal search theory.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:
Considering you keep a gun under your loaded firearm under your leg would make any officer suspicious and interested in keeping themselves safe, so by temporarily seizing the weapon during the duration of the stop does not seem to violate any rights.

+1 Keeping a gun under your leg while driving would make an officer feel as if you were secreting the weapon in a manner so that it was quickly and easily accessible for you to use on him.

If it was in a holster, I think that you may have had less of an issue, IMHO.
 

Citizen

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

NovaCop10 wrote:
SNIP Also, you should not be handling a firearm when you enter/exit your car...

This is a good point in light of the fact that police can order people out of the car.PA v Mimms. I can't imagine it would be good to be seen handling a gun as you are stepping out of the car during a traffic stop.

PA vs Mimms:

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.

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

 

jegoodin

Newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
imported post

If you don't want the LEO to hassle you about the gun, STFU. You brougt it upon yourself. Also, the ACLU puts out a very good video about what to do and not do during a traffic stop.

Rule #1 Shut up, dont say anything. Don't volunteer ANY info about any subject.

Rule #2 Lock your doors.

Rule #3 All windows rolled completely up except the driver's window which is only opened up enough to hear the LEO and give him any documents.

Rule #4 If asked to get out of the vehicle, get out and immediately lock your door again (don't forget the key).

Rule #5 Tell any passengers not to say a word. Period.

Rule #6 Do not for any reason consent to a search of your car or your person.
 

Citizen

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

jegoodin wrote:
SNIPthe ACLU puts out a very good video about what to do and not do during a traffic stop.

You mean FlexYourRights? The narrator is former ACLU; FlexYourRights is a separate organization.

Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

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



While we are on the subject of videos for new guys. Here is another great video:

Don't Talk to Police by Prof. James Duane of Regent University Law School

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

SaltH2OHokie

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
416
Location
Bottom of Suffolk, VA
imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:
He knew you had a permit (suspected you had a gun) because when he ran your tags there is a notation on your file that you have a permit. When that comes up they always ask.
I was under the impression that wasn't the case (tags telling anything about CHP). Furthermore, I drive my sister's car, my fiancee's truck and my dad's truck on a regular basis. None of them are 'permitted', so it certainly doesn't come up in those cases.

It does definitely come to light once they know who you are (driver's license).
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

SaltH2OHokie wrote:
Hawkflyer wrote:
He knew you had a permit (suspected you had a gun) because when he ran your tags there is a notation on your file that you have a permit. When that comes up they always ask.
I was under the impression that wasn't the case (tags telling anything about CHP). Furthermore, I drive my sister's car, my fiancee's truck and my dad's truck on a regular basis. None of them are 'permitted', so it certainly doesn't come up in those cases.

It does definitely come to light once they know who you are (driver's license).
When an officer runs your license plate number they are notified if you have a VA CHP. BUT, that only lets the officer know the vehicle's registered owner has a CHP, not the driver nor the passengers...
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

nova wrote:
SaltH2OHokie wrote:
Hawkflyer wrote:
He knew you had a permit (suspected you had a gun) because when he ran your tags there is a notation on your file that you have a permit. When that comes up they always ask.
I was under the impression that wasn't the case (tags telling anything about CHP).  Furthermore, I drive my sister's car, my fiancee's truck and my dad's truck on a regular basis.  None of them are 'permitted', so it certainly doesn't come up in those cases. 

It does definitely come to light once they know who you are (driver's license).
When an officer runs your license plate number they are notified if you have a VA CHP. BUT, that only lets the officer know the vehicle's registered owner has a CHP, not the driver nor the passengers...

Correct. I was assuming he was the owner of the car and is a Virginian.
 

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

It comes up under the VCINS (Virginia Criminal Investigative Network?? VA state police system) when the LEO runs your license. It doesn't have anything to do with the tags on the car. All states and any license and NCIC information is returned as well.

I think you answered that you had a handgun and where it was at so it gave the LEO reasonable probable cause to search and seize.

Both the ACLU and FlexYourRights have videos about the 5 th and 4 th ammendments. They both look the same.

The existence of a CHP is not enough to create reasonable probably cause but since you admitted to it you created it for the LEO. Once they have your weapon they can investigate all they want.

I am not a lawyer, I give no legal advice and only offer opinion.
 
Top