• 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.

Be Careful What You Say, When Stopped By MD State Police!

Citizen

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

Grapeshot wrote:
SNIP Driving in Md with an illegal gun falls in the category of things too painful to watch.

Hey, its late - what do you expect?

Yata hey
It must be late. Since when did you start believing in "illegal guns"?

Don't you mean illegalcarry?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
SNIP Driving in Md with an illegal gun falls in the category of things too painful to watch.

Hey, its late - what do you expect?

Yata hey
It must be late. Since when did you start believing in "illegal guns"?

Don't you mean illegalcarry?
In Maryland they call them "illegal guns."

Those are guns that have not applied for der paperz. :p

Yata hey
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
imported post

Citizen wrote:
swinokur wrote:
if you are traveling through MD (origin and destination not both in MD) you are covered as you state under Fed Title 18 SS 926 (FOPA).

If you start and end your trip in MD then you are covered under the MD statute 4-203. If you are traveling to one of the specific locations in the law, ie, gun store, range, organized shoot, place of business, etc. then you may carry unloaded in an enclosed case or holster. nothing has to be locked up and ammo does not have to be separate. You may also travel with loaded magazines as long as they are not in the weapon.
I'm not sure about the "start and end your trip in MD" part. Wouldn't it just have to be stopping in MD, regardless of where one started?

MD AG opinion. attached
 

no carry permit ?

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
180
Location
, ,
imported post

Texas Jack wrote:
I am a travelerto Baltimore, MD. Meaning, I have a place in PA and commute to Baltimore on a daily routine. However, my home is East Texas.

I was stopped for out of state tags (Texas) and in the conversation, asked "Do you have any weapons in your car?" well we all know that that split second hesitation is a sure fire conviction in its own right. When I respond "Yes" I have a hand-gun in the glove box, you would have thought I showed him a rattle-snake. I was asked to step out of the vehicle and place my hands on the hood, Slowly! within a few minutes, there were two (2) additional units and thankfully a older, experience sergant.

I found it a little amusing when asked, "Your not from here?" well is it my Texas plates, my boots, or the hat? that gave me away. Now, the search was completed and my 357 revolver was removed from the case and I was asked was it loaded? and I responded why would I carry an unloaded gun, too which I received no points, and when the younger officer noticed that the hammer was on a dead cylinder, I was asked,"why is there no bullet?" my response was did your father not teach you to never carry a loaded pistol with the hammer setting on a live cylinder? No response!

The Long/Short was I was given the pistol back and it was placed back in the glove box next to the box of ammo, less 5 rounds they kept. So I guess I did ok, they took 5 and I kept 45. So, now when I cross the MD line I have to decide if I am going to empty my gun and lock it up and place the ammo somewhere that is not "Readily Available" or just take my chances.

TJ
Let me be the first to scream BULLSHIT ! This never happened and the original poster is lying.

I grew up in the area and Maryland is famous for arresting people with permits from other States for illegal carry within Maryland. The State of Maryland doesn't recognize any other State's permit, and getting a Maryland permit is nearly impossible. Carrying a load firearm in Maryland in or out of your vehicle carries a mandatory two year prison sentence (up to three years & $1,000 fine), except in your home or place of business.

Stories like this could get some naive , trusting person arrested because they heard from some jackass on the board that the Maryland State Police just gave him back his gun. Bullshit. In Maryland Troopers ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE AN ARREST UPON FINDING A LOADED WEAPON IN A CAR or on a person. Most police departments within the State have similar policies.

Take your Texas Tall Tales somewhere else. Illegal carry in Maryland is a horrible thing to be advocating through this crazy story. What you claimed to have done here was 100% illegal and would have resulted in an arrest.

CITE: For the Citeaholics too lazy to google the State Statues:
Maryland Annoted Code Criminal law Title 4
Sections 4-201
Sections 4-203

or see this site from a defense attorney www.srislawyer.com

Keep his number if you are planning on doing what this lying Texan claimed to have done. You will need it, guaranteed.
 

petrophase

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
300
Location
Rapid City, South Dakota, USA
imported post

Now that I think about it the story does seem suspect. I also grew up in that exact area. This is the METROPOLIS - an hour to Philly, another to NY, another to Boston, another to DC. I just can't seem any MD cop east of Frederick County letting that slide.
 

Citizen

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

no carry permit ? wrote:
SNIP Let me be the first to scream BULL@#$% !

May I pass along some things I learned in the dim, distant past, that have served me well?

First, as the saying goes, sometimes truthisstranger than fiction. And, sometimes the improbable really does occur.

Second, certain suspicious reports can be treated as true, even if I am suspicious. In certain circumstances, voicing my suspicion may gain nothing, or may even reflect poorly on me. I can alwaysrespond in a way that treats the report as true. I don't make myself look knee-jerkish to any who might think it, and no real harm done. Ina case like the OP, I can always get across the idea that it is dangerous for any new readers. "Jeez, Mack. Your guardian angel was with you. That is so illegal that 99 times out of 100 you would have been arrested. Thank your lucky stars you got the Sgt you did, because any other cop almost assuredly would have arrested you." That sort of thing.

And, best of all, if it really was one of those times where the improbabledid actually occur, I haven't made an enemy or put off a potential friend/ally.

If it turns outa posteris a troll or liar,it will become apparent as he makes more posts.
 

Citizen

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

Flyer22 wrote:
I've read various stories about traffic stops, and watched various videos as well. I've thought about the questions about weapons, needles, etc. that officers tend to ask.

After thinking about it for a while, this is what I've come up with. If I'm in a position where I'm legally carrying or have a gun nearby, and I'm asked "Do you have any weapons," this is what I'll say--
"Nothing illegal."
And leave it at that. If they ask me again, I'll simply repeat that answer.
May I suggest a little dressing to help slip it past his guard?

Cops are trained by experience to detect lies and evasions. If I went this route, I might add a little surprise and a little timidness about guns, "Oh my heavens officer, there is nothing in this car like an illegal gun!" Say it like you totally believe any gun is illegal and too dangerous for sheeple like yourself to possess.

Otherwise, I would suggest something more along the lines of, "Officer, no offense, I know you are just doing your job, but I would like to establish up front that I am invoking all of my constitutional rights, including not answering even legitimate questions without an attorney."
 

Seigi

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

(IANAL but merely a law student. This is not legal advice; this is academic chatter regarding a class that I have not yet passed.)

Texas Jack wrote:
I was stopped for out of state tags (Texas) and in the conversation, asked "Do you have any weapons in your car?" well we all know that that split second hesitation is a sure fire conviction in its own right. When I respond "Yes" I have a hand-gun in the glove box, you would have thought I showed him a rattle-snake. I was asked to step out of the vehicle and place my hands on the hood, Slowly! within a few minutes, there were two (2) additional units and thankfully a older, experience sergant.
Partial quote, emphasis added.

I'm unaware of any precedent that determines whether a gun's existence, when volunteered to the police, can form reasonable suspicion upon which to conduct a frisk under Terry. I'm fairly certain, however, that no one can act upon knowledge that they do not have.

Lawyer and cop agree: Don't talk to police.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Citizen wrote:
4sooth wrote:
This was an illegal search and seizure. The search of the interior of a passenger vehicle must be related to the reason the vehicle was stopped in the first place. So--what evidence of an out-of-state tag would be found in the interior of a car?
You are suggesting that the driver's declaration of gun possession not conforming to the federal Safe Passage Law and illegal in MD is not probable cause for a search?

Sorry to come off lippy. Its just that I cannot cite the cases if I phrase it as astatement of law. Phrasing it as a questionwas the only way I could come upwith. :)
What he seems to be saying is even if an officer has probable cause to search for a crime that the scope of a search of a vehicle is limited by the possibility of obtaining evidence for the crime (or crimes?) for which reasonable suspicion was present at the time of the stop.

I'm not sure what law he's referring to; he didn't cite anything. It's possible that there is some law (a state law, perhaps) that backs him, but it's not my responsibility to go looking for it. If he is relying on the 4th Amendment then he is wrong. I am not saying that searches are not limited by the type of evidence sought, but the claim that police can never add crimes to search for evidence for after the initial traffic stop is false. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005); Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983); New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).

In Caballes, a man was pulled over for speeding. 543 U.S. 405. A second officer heard about the stop and came by with a drug dog. The dog "alerted" at the trunk, indicating drugs were present. The officers searched the trunk, found marijuana, and arrested the driver. Held, that the search was constitutional. The disputed issues were whether the defendant was detained for an unreasonable duration while the dog was brought in and whether a dog's behavior could give rise to probable cause - That the probable cause would justify the search, despite not being the crime for which the defendant was originally stopped, is implicit in the holding.
Note: They did not pull him over for drugs. They were not going to find evidence of speeding in the trunk.

In Long, two officers observed a car driving erratically and ultimately crashing into a ditch. 463 U.S. 1032. They walked up to investigate and found the driver, Long, standing at the rear of the vehicle. They then asked for his license and registration. He produced the license and then began walking toward the open front door of the vehicle. One of the officers believed that Long "appeared to be under the influence of something." Id. at 1036. The officers followed him and saw a long gun in the car. They frisked him and found nothing. (Ostensibly they're looking for any other guns.) Then they searched the passenger compartment, including opening the glove box, and found nothing. Then they impounded the car, searched the trunk, and found seventy-five pounds (75lbs) of marijuana. Held, that the search of the passenger compartment was lawful. (The court did not reach the issue of the search of the trunk because it was not raised before the Supreme Court of Michigan. The appellate court upheld the trial court's ruling that it was constitutional.)

In Belton, a car was pulled over for speeding. 453 U.S. 454. There were four men in it, and none of them owned the car. The officer smelled burnt marijuana, and saw an envelope on the floor of the vehicle labeled "Supergold." He then directed the occupants to get out of the car, placed them under arrest, patted them down, and separated them. He then picked up the envelope, opened it, and discovered the marijuana therein. Then he started to search the passenger compartment, and found a jacket belonging to Belton. He checked the pockets and found cocaine. Held, lawful search incident to lawful arrest. He had probable cause at the time of arrest, and he lawfully searched the passenger compartment.

[Edited to fix post after hyperlink caused text, and itself, to be omitted. Multiple times. What causes this?]
 

Citizen

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

Seigi wrote:
Texas Jack wrote:
I was stopped for out of state tags (Texas) and in the conversation, asked "Do you have any weapons in your car?" well we all know that that split second hesitation is a sure fire conviction in its own right. When I respond "Yes" I have a hand-gun in the glove box, you would have thought I showed him a rattle-snake. I was asked to step out of the vehicle and place my hands on the hood, Slowly! within a few minutes, there were two (2) additional units and thankfully a older, experience sergant.
SNIP
I'm unaware of any precedent that determines whether a gun's existence, when volunteered to the police, can form reasonable suspicion upon which to conduct a frisk under Terry. I'm fairly certain, however, that no one can act upon knowledge that they do not have.

Pennsylvania v Mimms; US v Baker. Both more or less equate mere possession of a gun with dangerousness during a traffic stop and allow the LEO to seize the gun for officer safety.

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."

Baker: "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." (Note the part about even if stopped only for a minor violation.)

Literally, I think you are right. Probably very few cases where volunteering the presence of a gun is RAS for Terry gun seizure. There was one by the Indiana Court of Appeals just this last February, and that case cited an earlier Indiana case. Aside from those, I know of none. However, while I agree with you that it maybe shouldn't be the way Mimms and Baker say, I think we can guess what the courts will say if such a case comes before them.
 

Citizen

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

Seigi wrote:
(IANAL but merely a law student. This is not legal advice; this is academic chatter regarding a class that I have not yet passed.)

Texas Jack wrote:
I was stopped for out of state tags (Texas) and in the conversation, asked "Do you have any weapons in your car?" well we all know that that split second hesitation is a sure fire conviction in its own right. When I respond "Yes" I have a hand-gun in the glove box, you would have thought I showed him a rattle-snake. I was asked to step out of the vehicle and place my hands on the hood, Slowly! within a few minutes, there were two (2) additional units and thankfully a older, experience sergant.
Partial quote, emphasis added.

I'm unaware of any precedent that determines whether a gun's existence, when volunteered to the police, can form reasonable suspicion upon which to conduct a frisk under Terry. I'm fairly certain, however, that no one can act upon knowledge that they do not have.

Lawyer and cop agree: Don't talk to police.
Citizen wrote:
4sooth wrote:
SNIP This was an illegal search and seizure.
SNIP You are suggesting that the driver's declaration of gun possession not conforming to the federal Safe Passage Law and illegal in MD is not probable cause for a search?
SNIP What he seems to be saying is even if an officer has probable cause to search for a crime that the scope of a search of a vehicle is limited by the possibility of obtaining evidence for the crime (or crimes?) for which reasonable suspicion was present at the time of the stop.
Skim through the rest of the thread. It was established by citation to statute that glove-box carry of a loaded gun is illegal in MD. Thus, the driver's statements about the gun in the glove-box amounted to probable cause, I should think. No different than saying, "No guns, but I've got an eight-ball of cocaine in the glove box."
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Since the OP had out of state tags in Maryland and volunteered that he had a loaded gun in the glove compartment, I think it reasonable to presume that the officer would have had RAS that a crime had occurred. :p

Yata hey
 

Citizen

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

swinokur wrote:
Citizen wrote:
swinokur wrote:
if you are traveling through MD (origin and destination not both in MD) you are covered as you state under Fed Title 18 SS 926 (FOPA).

If you start and end your trip in MD then you are covered under the MD statute 4-203. If you are traveling to one of the specific locations in the law, ie, gun store, range, organized shoot, place of business, etc. then you may carry unloaded in an enclosed case or holster. nothing has to be locked up and ammo does not have to be separate. You may also travel with loaded magazines as long as they are not in the weapon.
I'm not sure about the "start and end your trip in MD" part. Wouldn't it just have to be stopping in MD, regardless of where one started?

MD AG opinion. attached

Thanks!I read the opinion. It just confirmed my thinking. The relevant paragraph seems to be the nextto last.

In short, 18 USC 926A protects passing through Maryland. And, the AG says this fed statute does not protect trips that start and end in Maryland.

What the AG does not say is that a trip that starts outside MD and ends inside MD is also not protected by 18 USC 926A.The statute only protects crossing through MD.Starting outside MD and ending in MD is just another way to not cross through Maryland. Why the AG left that unsaid, I do not know. Maybe he was just focusing on a question that asked about starting and stopping within MD.
 

Citizen

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

Grapeshot wrote:
Since the OP had out of state tags in Maryland and volunteered that he had a loaded gun in the glove compartment, I think it reasonable to presume that the officer would have had RAS that a crime had occurred. :p
Letsexercise a little. The MD statutemakes exceptions for certain business,sporting, collector, and repair activities, modified by the gun being unloaded and cased.

Now, according to the OP, the gun seems to have been seized based on the report of its presence, with no pre-seizure follow-up questions from the cop about whether it was loaded or cased in compliancewith the statute.

So, since the cop did not knowthe gun wasbeing transported in non-compliance with the statute, did he really haveprobable causeforan evidence seizure? As opposed to an officer-safety seizure?

I am thinkingthat under Mimmsit was legal for the cop to order the OPerout of the car. Mimms and Baker both authorize temporary gun seizure for officer safety.

Here is where it gets real interesting.The cop opened the case. Hmmmmm. A 4A case law violation? The gun isalready seized, in the case. Officer safety is now satisfied. What authorizes the LEO to open the case? If there is no visible gun in the glove box while the gun-heavycase is outside the glove box, it must mean the driver-admitted gun is in fact in the gun case. Thus, the LEO now has control of the gun (and the driver is palms-on-hood at the car front.) Officer safety is now satisfied.

So, why did the cop open the gun case? He certainly does not seem to have had probable cause to search the gun case for criminal violation since he had no information that a business, sporting, collector, or repair exception did not exist. Was the mere presence of the ammunition box in the glove-box sufficient to provide probable cause the gun was loaded, a sure violation since the statute requires unloaded-ness. Even if the presence of the ammo boxdid provide PC of a loaded gun violation, the cop missed the significance because he asked whether the gun was loaded after it was out of the case, so he certainly was not using the ammo box as his PC to search the case and examine the gun.

So, maybe the earlier poster(s) who said it was an illegal search/seizure are right after all.

Except that the OPer admitted to the cop that the gun was loaded, for which some judge would, I am sure, find some exception to the exclusionary rule allowing the evidence to be introduced evenif the search of removing the gun fromthe casejust moments prior was illegal.
 

no carry permit ?

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
180
Location
, ,
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Flyer22 wrote:
I've read various stories about traffic stops, and watched various videos as well. I've thought about the questions about weapons, needles, etc. that officers tend to ask.

After thinking about it for a while, this is what I've come up with. If I'm in a position where I'm legally carrying or have a gun nearby, and I'm asked "Do you have any weapons," this is what I'll say--
"Nothing illegal."
And leave it at that. If they ask me again, I'll simply repeat that answer.
May I suggest a little dressing to help slip it past his guard?

Cops are trained by experience to detect lies and evasions. If I went this route, I might add a little surprise and a little timidness about guns, "Oh my heavens officer, there is nothing in this car like an illegal gun!" Say it like you totally believe any gun is illegal and too dangerous for sheeple like yourself to possess.

Otherwise, I would suggest something more along the lines of, "Officer, no offense, I know you are just doing your job, but I would like to establish up front that I am invoking all of my constitutional rights, including not answering even legitimate questions without an attorney."
Excellent point and ordinarily I would agree 100% , however this new poster joined on the same day he posted this Unbelievable incident and has a whopping five post to his "credit." This could just be a nut, an anti-gunner looking to get someone in trouble or a Maryland Trooper laying a trap for the naive. They are increasingly asking drivers from Virginia and other non-tyrannical states whether they have a firearm in the car. When you say no, they say " do you mind if I check" ? Then of course comes the whole "if you don't have anything to hide bla bla bla....

My major problem with the many posters like this Texas clown is they are setting young gun owners up for an undeserved slam dunk conviction & prison time.

That's a bit too serious of consequences for the innocent to allow this post to be assumed legit. Too many young people read this forum and assume the advice is legally correct. In this very thread several assertions are made by several posters that are not even close to being correct. What this original poster claimed he did was 100% illegal and would have guaranteed an arrest and permanent seizure of the firearm /destruction.

Some young kid could end up with $15,000 in legal fees and a life changing conviction, just because someone has an agenda, is bored, or is just a wack job.
 

theschultz

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
47
Location
Timonium, Maryland, USA
imported post

Texas Jack wro
In Maryland, the weapon must be unloaded and placed in a locked carrier where it is not "Readily Accessible" and the ammo must be stored in a different place.

Example given, ammo in the glove box, weapon in the trunk of car

So, even going to and from Gun range this applies.
Incorrect. Weapon must be unloaded and encased or in enclosed holster.

§ 4-203. MD CODE
(b) This section does not prohibit:
(4) the wearing, carrying, or transporting by a person of a handgun used in connection with an organized military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a Department of Natural Resources-sponsored firearms and hunter safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or show, while the person is engaged in, on the way to, or returning from that activity if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster;
 

theschultz

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
47
Location
Timonium, Maryland, USA
imported post

I also call b^%$$hit. By the way did you notice, despite the title and subtitle, he never said this happened in Maryland? Did you? Well, I did!

Doesn't ring true.

Dave
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
imported post

Citizen wrote:
swinokur wrote:
Citizen wrote:
swinokur wrote:
if you are traveling through MD (origin and destination not both in MD) you are covered as you state under Fed Title 18 SS 926 (FOPA).

If you start and end your trip in MD then you are covered under the MD statute 4-203. If you are traveling to one of the specific locations in the law, ie, gun store, range, organized shoot, place of business, etc. then you may carry unloaded in an enclosed case or holster. nothing has to be locked up and ammo does not have to be separate. You may also travel with loaded magazines as long as they are not in the weapon.
I'm not sure about the "start and end your trip in MD" part. Wouldn't it just have to be stopping in MD, regardless of where one started?

MD AG opinion. attached

Thanks!I read the opinion. It just confirmed my thinking. The relevant paragraph seems to be the nextto last.

In short, 18 USC 926A protects passing through Maryland. And, the AG says this fed statute does not protect trips that start and end in Maryland.

What the AG does not say is that a trip that starts outside MD and ends inside MD is also not protected by 18 USC 926A.The statute only protects crossing through MD.Starting outside MD and ending in MD is just another way to not cross through Maryland. Why the AG left that unsaid, I do not know. Maybe he was just focusing on a question that asked about starting and stopping within MD.

But he did require that BOTH the origin and destination be in MD for the MD statute to apply. If you started in PA and ended in MD you would still have FOPA protection according to the AG. Is this not what he said?
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
imported post

Citizen wrote:
no carry permit ? wrote:
SNIP Let me be the first to scream BULL@#$% !

May I pass along some things I learned in the dim, distant past, that have served me well?

First, as the saying goes, sometimes truthisstranger than fiction. And, sometimes the improbable really does occur.

Second, certain suspicious reports can be treated as true, even if I am suspicious. In certain circumstances, voicing my suspicion may gain nothing, or may even reflect poorly on me. I can alwaysrespond in a way that treats the report as true. I don't make myself look knee-jerkish to any who might think it, and no real harm done. Ina case like the OP, I can always get across the idea that it is dangerous for any new readers. "Jeez, Mack. Your guardian angel was with you. That is so illegal that 99 times out of 100 you would have been arrested. Thank your lucky stars you got the Sgt you did, because any other cop almost assuredly would have arrested you." That sort of thing.

And, best of all, if it really was one of those times where the improbabledid actually occur, I haven't made an enemy or put off a potential friend/ally.

If it turns outa posteris a troll or liar,it will become apparent as he makes more posts.
You sir are both a wordsmith and a gentleman. Very nicely said in a most subtle manner.
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
imported post

Both Citizen and Grapeshot have made excellent postson OCDOregarding the "shenanigans" calls on new posters. I myself made an error last year in forwarding a bogus post to the press.

I think it behooves us all to take some care in our postings. The written word does not always convey the nuances- through inflection, body language, and facial expression- that the spoken word does. Emoticons be:cuss:.

Hmm. Is that sentence grammatically correct?:lol:
 

Seigi

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Seigi wrote:
(IANAL but merely a law student. This is not legal advice; this is academic chatter regarding a class that I have not yet passed.)

Texas Jack wrote:
I was stopped for out of state tags (Texas) and in the conversation, asked "Do you have any weapons in your car?" well we all know that that split second hesitation is a sure fire conviction in its own right. When I respond "Yes" I have a hand-gun in the glove box, you would have thought I showed him a rattle-snake. I was asked to step out of the vehicle and place my hands on the hood, Slowly! within a few minutes, there were two (2) additional units and thankfully a older, experience sergant.
Partial quote, emphasis added.

I'm unaware of any precedent that determines whether a gun's existence, when volunteered to the police, can form reasonable suspicion upon which to conduct a frisk under Terry. I'm fairly certain, however, that no one can act upon knowledge that they do not have.

Lawyer and cop agree: Don't talk to police.
Citizen wrote:
4sooth wrote:
SNIP This was an illegal search and seizure.
SNIP You are suggesting that the driver's declaration of gun possession not conforming to the federal Safe Passage Law and illegal in MD is not probable cause for a search?
SNIP What he seems to be saying is even if an officer has probable cause to search for a crime that the scope of a search of a vehicle is limited by the possibility of obtaining evidence for the crime (or crimes?) for which reasonable suspicion was present at the time of the stop.
Skim through the rest of the thread. It was established by citation to statute that glove-box carry of a loaded gun is illegal in MD. Thus, the driver's statements about the gun in the glove-box amounted to probable cause, I should think. No different than saying, "No guns, but I've got an eight-ball of cocaine in the glove box."
I did read the whole thread. ;) I wasn't trying to address the particular situation described by the OP but rather to rebut, with citations to authority, two false statements made earlier in the thread which, if believed, could be hazardous to the reader. The first statement, made by the OP, was that "hesitation" was a "sure fire conviction." This could cause people to rush into answering questions - a practice which is, for reasons explained at length in the video I linked, very dangerous regardless of one's actual guilt. The second statement, made by 4sooth, was that "[t]he search of the interior of a passenger vehicle must be related to the reason the vehicle was stopped in the first place." There is no such rule, and the belief that there is is dangerous in it could cause someone to conclude that they are safe from search when they are not. A false sense of security is a dangerous thing.

Since you snipped the portion of 4sooth's post that I was addressing I conclude that my previous post was unclear. My argument was that "the claim that police can never add crimes to search for evidence for after the initial traffic stop is false." It was not about whether probable cause did or did not exist in the OPs particular situation; it was that, in general, police who, during a lawful traffic stop, obtain probable cause for a crime other than that which originally authorized the stop may search for evidence of the newer crime. If what 4sooth had posted was literally correct then the man who admitted to an eight-ball of cocaine after being stopped for speeding would go free - presuming, of course, that cocaine possession is unrelated to speeding. Such a rule would be absurd, certainly, but absurdity is an unreliable basis to determine what is and is not the law so I cited cases.
 
Top