Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: First test of the new law

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    First test of the new law

    Yesterday I had to get something. Where I live...getting something involves a 20 to 40 mile trip if t's more than gas. Then I can get away with 16 miles.

    Anyway...I drove through Nottoway and got to a checkpoint run by VSP.

    I had a 44 in a holster hanging from the gun rack and another one in the glove compartment and the 45/70 in the rack.

    Conversation as I handed him my license.
    /,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,
    Good morning sir.

    Good morning.

    What happened to your windshield.

    Rock hit it.

    That happens a lot. I bought a new truck and one hit the windshield the next day.

    By the way, I have a gun.

    I saw them when you drove up.

    I have another one in the glove compartment.

    That's fine, have a nice day.
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,

    At least VSP is up on the new laws!

  2. #2
    Regular Member gis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    264
    I had very good interaction with VSP last year, just after I moved here. It was in the Leesburg area. I was headed home and realized that I missed my turn-off. Just as I did, I noticed a check point about a half mile ahead on the road I was on, with about 10-12 cars waiting to be talked to. Not wanting to waste time, I immediately pulled a U-turn (legal one as far as I could tell) and went the opposite way. Sure enough, I had one of the VSP guys catch up to me. I gave him my DL, informed him that I was armed, explained why I did the U-turn and said that it might look suspicious. The guy gave me back my license and told me to have a nice day. No other questions or chit chat.

    My impression is that VSP generally maintains a high level of professionalism, so I would expect them to be current on the law.
    Last edited by gis; 07-04-2010 at 09:23 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    184
    His what was the reason he gave for pullig you over? Where you speeding?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by conhntr View Post
    His what was the reason he gave for pullig you over? Where you speeding?
    He said it was a checkpoint setup by VSP.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by conhntr View Post
    His what was the reason he gave for pullig you over? Where you speeding?
    Road block...First one I've been through for years.

  6. #6
    Regular Member gis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by conhntr View Post
    His what was the reason he gave for pullig you over? Where you speeding?
    When someone is attempting to avoid a checkpoint, that's enough reasonable suspicion to for a traffic stop. Had I waited to clear the checkpoint, I would have to turn around on the other side and go through it again on the way back. But he didn't know that before he pulled me over. That was a good stop.

  7. #7
    Regular Member ODA 226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Etzenricht, Germany
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Road block...First one I've been through for years.
    I still say that checkpoints are unconstitutional.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    184
    Ok wasntnsure from the op if it was something in addition or just for making a u-turn in the vicinity of a checkpoint. This is exactly why I'm against checkpoints it's a slippery slope.
    Checkpoint ok
    u-turn that would be ok is Noe cause for stop because of vicinity to checkpoint
    whAt if I open my front door,see a checkpoint and go back inside- search my house?


    It's not a huge step we already acknowledged it's ok to stop someone where it otherwise wouldn't be because a checkpoint is nearby why not slide all the way down the slope and search my house and bank records?

  9. #9
    Regular Member gis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by conhntr View Post
    Ok wasntnsure from the op if it was something in addition or just for making a u-turn in the vicinity of a checkpoint. This is exactly why I'm against checkpoints it's a slippery slope.
    Checkpoint ok
    u-turn that would be ok is Noe cause for stop because of vicinity to checkpoint
    whAt if I open my front door,see a checkpoint and go back inside- search my house?


    It's not a huge step we already acknowledged it's ok to stop someone where it otherwise wouldn't be because a checkpoint is nearby why not slide all the way down the slope and search my house and bank records?
    Having been a cop in the Midwest, I find checkpoints a little uncomfortable myself. We did details (drunks, drugs, etc.), had spotters, but always had RS to stop someone and never stopped everyone. If he had asked to search my vehicle on the basis of a U-turn, I would of course turn him down (nothing but guns in the vehicle anyway), and follow it up the chain if I had to. However his RS (avoiding police contact) couldn't be developed into PC based on what I said, so he correctly wished me a good day. No harm no foul.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by ODA 226 View Post
    I still say that checkpoints are unconstitutional.
    +1 times 20. I do not understand the reasoning behind their supposed legality. It's a fishing expedition where they stop you and fish for something illegal while you wait there patiently for them to do so. But of course you have nothing to fear, right?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by conhntr View Post
    Ok wasntnsure from the op if it was something in addition or just for making a u-turn in the vicinity of a checkpoint. This is exactly why I'm against checkpoints it's a slippery slope.
    Checkpoint ok
    u-turn that would be ok is Noe cause for stop because of vicinity to checkpoint
    whAt if I open my front door,see a checkpoint and go back inside- search my house?


    It's not a huge step we already acknowledged it's ok to stop someone where it otherwise wouldn't be because a checkpoint is nearby why not slide all the way down the slope and search my house and bank records?
    Dood, you don't have anything to hide do you? The mere fact you don't like checkpoints makes me reasonably suspicious that you are hiding something :^).

  12. #12
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Locked vs. Secured

    It's good to hear that this went OK for you.

    After the thread about the VSP website not catching the last minute change in the final version of the law, I got to thinking about how easy it would be for a zealous LEO and CA to argue that "secured" does require "locked". The word "secure" does have multiple meanings. Especially for military folks, who use it to describe the action of locking up a safe, a room or a space on a ship.

    I think it would be important for us to always remember the details of this law, especially that final change. Any judge or jury, presented with the fact that the bill did indeed go through an explicit change from "locked" to "secured", should be able to see that the intent of the General Assembly (which did pass the final version) was to not require a locked container.

    TFred

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by gis View Post
    I had very good interaction with VSP last year, just after I moved here. It was in the Leesburg area. I was headed home and realized that I missed my turn-off. Just as I did, I noticed a check point about a half mile ahead on the road I was on, with about 10-12 cars waiting to be talked to. Not wanting to waste time, I immediately pulled a U-turn (legal one as far as I could tell) and went the opposite way. Sure enough, I had one of the VSP guys catch up to me. I gave him my DL, informed him that I was armed, explained why I did the U-turn and said that it might look suspicious. The guy gave me back my license and told me to have a nice day. No other questions or chit chat.

    My impression is that VSP generally maintains a high level of professionalism, so I would expect them to be current on the law.
    I manage to find all the rookies in every PD.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by ODA 226 View Post
    I still say that checkpoints are unconstitutional.
    +1

    The first give-away is the cheesy little word "checkpoint". For what is in reality a roadblock.

    But, hey. If we massage the terminology a little, we can make it seem less intrusive, and tie it to public safety. Then, fewer people will care.

    I try to avoid using the government's word--checkpoint. No sense in conceding to them the initiative to change the language to their advantage.

    Regarding changing words, I recently read a blog post. Apparently someone did a little research. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the term for the bust-phase of the boom-bust economic cycle was "panic". "The Panic of 1908" etc." Then, in the 1930's the term "depression" was used. Then later, "recession". Now, it has gone a step further. The new term is "recovery" or "recovering economy." Uh-huh. The proper term is "government-central bank eff-up."

    The lesson is to be alert for word games in the terminology.

  15. #15
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by gis View Post
    When someone is attempting to avoid a checkpoint, that's enough reasonable suspicion to for a traffic stop. Had I waited to clear the checkpoint, I would have to turn around on the other side and go through it again on the way back. But he didn't know that before he pulled me over. That was a good stop.
    Maybe in the midwest, but apparently not in Virginia. Here is a web page which provides statute and case cites for checkpoints for all 50 states. Very interesting!

    http://www.iihs.org/laws/checkpoints.html

    Here is the entry for Virginia, I colored the summaries for easy seeing:

    Upheld under state and federal Constitution. Lowe v. Commonwealth, 337 S.E.2d 273 (Va. 1985), cert. den., 475 U.S. 1084 (1986). See also, Crandol v. City of Newport News, 386 S.E.2d 113 (Va. 1989); Simmons v. Commonwealth, 380 S.E.2d 656 (Va. 1989); Hall v. Commonwealth, 406 S.E.2d 674 (Va. App. 1991); Thomas v. Commonwealth, 473 S.E.2d 87 (Va. App. 1996). Deviation in checkpoint location, as stated in plan, will not invalidate the checkpoint. Sheppard v. Commonwealth, 489 S.E.2d 714 (Va. App. 1997). Legal driving maneuvers that reverse a driver's course toward a checkpoint do not justify a stop, Bass v. Commonwealth, 525 S.E.2d 921 (Va. 2000). See also, Murphy v. Commonwealth, 384 S.E. 2d 125 (Va. App. 1989). Certain avoidance maneuvers do justify a stop, Commonwealth v. Eaves, 408 S.E. 2d 925 (Va. App. 1991); Stroud v. Commonwealth, 370 S.E. 2d 721 (Va. App. 1988); Brown v. Commonwealth, 440 S.E, 2d 619 (Va. App. 1994).

    From reading some of the case summaries, it would appear that if you avoid the stop by driving legally, and before you reach the line of cars that are stopped, they don't have sufficient RAS to stop you, but if you engage in "certain avoidance maneuvers" then they do.

    I did hunt down Bass vs. Commonwealth. Worth the read. The Commonwealth was digging out every nook and cranny of the code they could think of to try to get this to stick on the guy. Here's one, there were several others, all shot down, as well:

    Initially, the Commonwealth argues that Officer Wickham's observation of Bass' driving maneuvers supports the officer's reasonable conclusion that Bass “was evading the traffic checkpoint and, consequently, was violating the law.”   Although there is no specific statutory prohibition against the avoidance or evasion of a traffic checkpoint, the Commonwealth refers to Code § 46.2-817, which makes it unlawful for citizens to refuse to stop their vehicles when commanded to do so by the police, and contends that a traffic checkpoint is a command by the police for all those approaching to stop their vehicles.   There is no merit to this contention.

    Very interesting indeed.

    TFred

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Initially, the Commonwealth argues that Officer Wickham's observation of Bass' driving maneuvers supports the officer's reasonable conclusion that Bass “was evading the traffic checkpoint and, consequently, was violating the law.”   Although there is no specific statutory prohibition against the avoidance or evasion of a traffic checkpoint, the Commonwealth refers to Code § 46.2-817, which makes it unlawful for citizens to refuse to stop their vehicles when commanded to do so by the police, and contends that a traffic checkpoint is a command by the police for all those approaching to stop their vehicles.   There is no merit to this contention.


    Very interesting indeed.

    TFred
    You might like this blog post, TFred: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/
    The first post dated 7-4-10. For some reason the author did not include a perma-link so you might have to hunt backwards to find it. Just look for his July 4th post on the 4th Amendment.

  17. #17
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    You might like this blog post, TFred: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/
    The first post dated 7-4-10. For some reason the author did not include a perma-link so you might have to hunt backwards to find it. Just look for his July 4th post on the 4th Amendment.
    Interesting. I don't know whether I should feel good, bad, or neutral that there is another amendment (the fourth) support group that appears to be in worse shape than we (the second) are.

    I guess we should all support them all!

    TFred

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Interesting. I don't know whether I should feel good, bad, or neutral that there is another amendment (the fourth) support group that appears to be in worse shape than we (the second) are.

    I guess we should all support them all!

    TFred
    You should feel proud that OCers are the main gun-world support group for the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. (search and seizure, silence, right to an attorney)

    How many other gun-rights groups get so much practice writing complaints or suing for violations of the 4th Amendment? (St. John, Banks, Syzmecki)

    Yes, support them all!!

    PS: I'm not too thrilled about repelling a violation of the 3rd Amendment (quartering troops in homes).

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Neplusultra View Post
    Dood, you don't have anything to hide do you? The mere fact you don't like checkpoints makes me reasonably suspicious that you are hiding something :^).
    One of my grandmothers was Jewish... I'm afraid the police may figure this out at the ROADBLOCK. most of the Leo don't support the roadblocks (they are just following orders) but next time you go through one mutter something about "your papers please!"

    I know alot of peoe think I'm blowing it out o proportion but it. Is a really big deal

  20. #20
    Regular Member Old Virginia Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SE Va., , Occupied CSA
    Posts
    366

    "may I see your papers?"

    {{{One of my grandmothers was Jewish... I'm afraid the police may figure this out at the ROADBLOCK. most of the Leo don't support the roadblocks (they are just following orders) but next time you go through one mutter something about "your papers please!" }}}

    I love this guy's suggestion!! I hope I can remember to do this next time I meet a ROADBLOCK! We need to plant these seeds in the minds of LEO everywhere. This sounds like a OATHKEEPERS.ORG concept, doesn't it ?

    Let's spread this idea to our friends.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by ODA 226 View Post
    I still say that checkpoints are unconstitutional.
    +1 ODA for these stupid road blocks.

    States do have police powers so I would say very narrow grounds such as escaped convict from the prison a few milrs away mught survive constitutional scrutiny.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  22. #22
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Angry

    Roadblocks, checkpoints, "safety zones"... they are all unreasonable and direct violation of 4th Amendment rights.

    Participants should be jailed and the organizers hanged for treason. The severity of the punishment is due to the fact that they either honestly believe they are doing nothing wrong and are thereby complete idiots or they know what they're dong is wrong and do it anyway because they "can" which makes them traitors and criminals.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    184

    Glad I'm not alone

    Feeling so strongly about this. It really is a HUGE invasion of privacy. Apparently the constitution gaurantees you the "right" to have abortions but not to
    be free of random searches! Geeze

  24. #24
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Roadblocks

    I thought the *only* reason a roadblock could be erected was to search for "drunk" drivers. Was this the purpose of the VSP roadblock, or were they doing other hokey things like license and reg checks?

    See: Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz

    I ran into a roadblock 1 block from my home several years ago. Time was 5:30 PM (normal commuting hours in the evening) and the Ffx cop told me it was a check for license and reg. I immediately demanded the on scene supervisor come to my car and I asked him if there was a DUI aspect involved with the stop. He told me "No" so I proceeded to ask him about the legality of the roadblock. He didn't want to have ANY of it, he got a bit huffy and told me to get on my way. I never showed anyone my DL or registration but I'm *sure* they took down my plate as I drove off.

    BTW, does this new forum have a spell check? I'm not finding it.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by nakedshoplifter View Post
    I thought the *only* reason a roadblock could be erected was to search for "drunk" drivers. Was this the purpose of the VSP roadblock, or were they doing other hokey things like license and reg checks?

    See: Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz

    I ran into a roadblock 1 block from my home several years ago. Time was 5:30 PM (normal commuting hours in the evening) and the Ffx cop told me it was a check for license and reg. I immediately demanded the on scene supervisor come to my car and I asked him if there was a DUI aspect involved with the stop. He told me "No" so I proceeded to ask him about the legality of the roadblock. He didn't want to have ANY of it, he got a bit huffy and told me to get on my way. I never showed anyone my DL or registration but I'm *sure* they took down my plate as I drove off.

    BTW, does this new forum have a spell check? I'm not finding it.
    It's my understanding that they can set them up for any routine checks. They have to be approved and planned in advance and cannot be discriminatory. They have to follow the plan such as stopping every car or every third car and they can't deviate from that.

    They also can't go into areas of the car that are not visible from outside.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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