SNIP Just because you are pulled over for a traffic violation doesn't qualify for RAS.
Huh? How are youdefining RAS?Are you talking about reasonable suspicion the citizen is armed, or reasonable suspicion the citizen is, was, or is about to commit a crime? The term "RAS" is generally associate withwas/is/about to crime.
If
Terry v. Ohio's RAS requirements were met by a traffic stop, then the officer would be able to search your vehicle.
Well, yes. There is case law about whether the LEO can search the areas within reach once he has reasonable suspicion a weapon may be in the car. See the earlier comment from another poster about "within your wingspan."
In
PA v. MIMMS The RAS came from the observation of a CONCEALED FIREARM
Which is a crime and more serious than a traffic violation.
The Mimms gun seizure was not argued onRAS of a crime, if I recall. Mimms was argued on officer safety legitimizing the gun seizure.But, its been a while since I read the whole thing so let me know if I've gotit wrong.Also, I'll try to make time later tonite or tomorrow to re-read it.
In
US v. Baker The defendant failed to stop, evaded capture, assisted others in evading police capture, was driving recklessly, and was known to have lied to the police during questioning.
Yes. I was erroneously combining the fact patterns/circumstances of Mimms and Baker. I've since corrected that earlier long post.
PA v. MIMMS reasoning for seizure doesn't hold as the officer, alerted by VCIN knows the firearm is lawfully concealed
"
"Under the standard announced in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 392 U. S. 21-22 --
the officer was justified in making the search he did once the bulge in respondent's
jacket was observed.""
US v. Baker doesn't hold because even if he was OCing a firearm legally, it could be illegal because there is the possibility of felony charges being filed against the suspect. However he was ALSO CARRYING CONCEALED
Which is a crime. RAS in this case came from "a triangular shaped bulge under his shirt, near his waistband" --Officer Pope
although I'm not sure if that was needed in this case.
Also, most traffic violations aren't even misdemeanors. I wonder are they even considered 'crimes?' It is a violation of the terms of agreement to us receiving the
privilege to drive on state property for sure.
As I side note.
I notice that on most paperwork I ever read or have to fill out, felonies and misdemeanors are 'crimes' while traffic violations are called offenses.:quirky
I simply have a hard time understanding haw lawful possession of a firearm can be considered RAS for seizure, as it is not just lawful, but an enumerated right in VA.
Its not necessarily considered RAS of a crime. It is, under certain circumstances, considered unsafe for the LEO. In conjunction with the VCIN popping the CHP when the plates are run I don't see how this can be construed as RAS for the officers safety. That is like saying lawful owners are inherently dangerous. Also a CHP requires the possessor to have undergone a handgun safety course, further removing any non-criminal safety concerns from the officer.
Citizen is correct that I am not a lawyer so don't take this as me telling you how it is but simply my argument; An interpretation by a layman. If there are errors in my argument I welcome counter-arguments.
