OC on a Motorcycle

The SCOTUS has ruled that you just can't stop a person driving a car to see if they have a license, I hope the same would be true for stopping and asking for a CPL.

Click to expand...

MrBfromD wrote:

I always try to look at things that involve firearm laws from both views and I hate to say it but I think an officer would consider this RS for a terry. Someone on here may say otherwise but I think you would be running the risk of getting stopped.

Click to expand...

How is it RAS?  Many people are allowed to conceal carry, many people are allowed to drive a car.  LEO's can't stop you just to see if you have a DL why should they be allowed to stop you just because they want to see if you have a licence to conceal.  Same principal in law. 

The SCOTUS has ruled that you just can't stop a person driving a car to see if they have a license, I hope the same would be true for stopping and asking for a CPL.

 

Click to expand...

RAS[/b] and ID request in exempted or licensedplaces[/b]



My argument (Opinion only)would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity. For example driving a car is lawful. Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license. Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.

The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people. Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission). Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)





U.S.[/b] Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)[/b]
No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

Syllabus

A patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor. Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance. At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana, the patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the vehicle, he had observed neither traffic or equipment violations nor any suspicious activity, and that he made the stop only in order to check the driver's license and the car's registration. The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 440 U. S. 651-653.

2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.

(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-655.

428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.

(c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 440 U. S. 662-663.

(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.

382 A.2d 1359, affirmed.

Click to expand...

RAS[/b] and ID request in exempted or licensed places[/b]

 

My argument (Opinion only) would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity.  For example driving a car is lawful.  Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license.  Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license. 
 
The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place.  Carrying a firearm is lawful.  Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people.  Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission).  Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)

 

 

U.S.[/b] Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)[/b]
No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

Syllabus

A patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor. Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance. At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana, the patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the vehicle, he had observed neither traffic or equipment violations nor any suspicious activity, and that he made the stop only in order to check the driver's license and the car's registration. The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 440 U. S. 651-653.

2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.

(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-655.

428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.

(c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 440 U. S. 662-663.

(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.

382 A.2d 1359, affirmed.

Click to expand...

I wonder then how the Police can get away with check points where all cars are stopped. I saw this done in AZ. on highway from Mexico.

Click to expand...

You made it easy to see that it could be fought and most likely won. The sad thing though is just because you could fight it doesn't mean the cop wouldn't stop you anyway. If you were stopped though would you have grounds for a civil suit or something similar?

Click to expand...

MrBfromD wrote:

You made it easy to see that it could be fought and most likely won. The sad thing though is just because you could fight it doesn't mean the cop wouldn't stop you anyway. If you were stopped though would you have grounds for a civil suit or something similar?

Click to expand...

Probably not, you have to show some damages, and courts have stated a 20 minute stop is reasonable.  You could I suppose show damage if you were hurt, unlawfully arrested/charged, or continually stopped and harassed for the same thing.

The idea is if the stop/detainment was unlawful than everything found after that stop can be suppressed and not used against you (fruit from the poisonous tree).

For example if you were detained unlawfully and they found you had a concealed weapon, you could argue that the charge be dismissed because the stop wasn't lawful.  Unfortunately the courts favor (contrary to the Principal of our law) the prosecution.


Within the jurisprudence of Anglo-American Law there is a common law principle that has come to be known as the RULE OF LENITY.  It states that penal statues should be strictly construed against the government or parties seeking to enforce statutory penalties and in favor of the person on whom penalties are sought to be imposed.  The rule essentially says that where a criminal statue is ambiguous it should be interpreted in such a way as to favor the accused.

One rationale behind the principle of lenity is for laws to be clearly stated.  Citizens should not have to guess whether a law applies to them or not. 

A second rationale behind the rule of lenity has to do with separation of powers.  The rule serves to prevent the judicial system from creating laws unintended by the legislature.  Because the functions of the courts is to interpret statues and not to enact them.[/b]

 [/b]

 

Click to expand...

RAS and ID request in exempted or licensedplaces

U.S. Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE


2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.

Click to expand...

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person...

Click to expand...